LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

OIF^T   01^ 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 


Received  October, 
Accessions  No  *3f*~f~*7>  •      Ctes  No  . 


,-A 


V. 


UNIVERSALISM  AS   IT   IS; 

OR, 

TEXT  BOOK 

OF 

MODERN    UNIVERSALISM 

bi 
AMERICA: 

BY  REV.  EDWIN  F.  HATFIELD. 


NEW  YORK : 
PUBLISHED  BY  J.  A.  HOISINGTON, 

THEOLOGICAL  BOOKSELLER,  156  FULTON  STREET, 

THIRD  DOOR  EAST  OF  BROADWAY. 

1841. 


99*7 


Entered  according  to  the  Acfof  Congress,  in  the  year  1841,  by 

EDWIN  F.  HATFIELD, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for 
the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


S.    W.    BENEDICT,   PRINTER,   128    FULTON-ST. 


• 
PREFACE 


ERROR,  to  be  successfully  combated,  must  be  known.  A 
minute  acquaintance  with  the  resources  of  an  enemy  is  indis- 
pensable to  a  prosperous  campaign.  A  mode  of  attack  suited 
to  one  position  would  be  utterly  unsuitable  to  one  of  a  differ- 
ent character.  Ignorance,  in  such  a  case,  is  defeat. 

These  remarks  apply  with  peculiar  force  to  the  controversy 
with  UNIVERSALISM.  A  sect  has  grown  up  in  this  land  within 
the  memory  of  those  now  living,  which,  with  loud  professions 
of  charity  and  universal  benevolence,  under  the  above  name, 
arrogates  to  itself  the  peculiar  distinction  of  being  the  only  de- 
positary of  religious  truth.  Insignificant  at  first  by  reason  of 
their  entire  want  of  a  profound  acquaintance  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  disreputable  character  of  those  who  became  the 
first  converts  to  the  creed,  it  has  now  acquired  importance  by 
the  extent  of  its  prevalence.  With  a  diligence  and  industry 
worthy  of  a  better  cause,  they  have  insinuated  themselves  in- 
to the  confidence  of  the  community  in  various  sections  of  the 
country,  until  they  now  claim  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  most 
numerous  religious  sects  in  the  land.  They  are,  in  their  own 
estimation,  ('  Life  of  Murray,1  p.  272,)  "the  fifth,  (if  not  the 
fourth,}  in  order,  in  point  of  numbers,  respect  ability  and  talent, 
among  the  denominations  of  the  land ; — among  the  greatest 
reading  people  in  the  Union ;  having  no  less  than  nineteen  or 
twenty  periodicals,  issuing  every  month  at  least  100,000  sheets 
to  25,  or  30,000  subscribers,  among  at  least  thrice  that  number 
of  regular  readers."  "  In  the  southern  and  western  ISi:i 
they  say,  "  the  doctrine  is  extending  its  progress  faster  than 
preachers  can  follow  to  proclaim  and  defend  it  ;  while  in  the 
eastern  and  middle  States,  ministers,  laymen,  and  even  whole 
societies  are  embracing  this  calumniated  doctrine,  and  com- 
ing over  to  its  avowal  and  support." 

Such  were  the  pretensions  of  the  sect  eight  years  since. 
Their  statistics  for  the  present  year  show  that  they  have  lost 
none  of  "  this  same  confident  boasting."  They  maintain 


IV  PREFACE. 

('  Universalist  Companion,'  p. 70,)  that  "during  the  past  year 
— no  less  than  fifty-nine  new  laborers  have  entered  into" 
their"  field  of  labor,  of  whom  nine  are  converts  from  the  Par- 
lialist  ministry  ; — while  hundreds,  yea,  thousands,  if  not  tens 
of  thousands,  of  the  Partialist  laity  have  embraced  and  avowed 
the  faith  of  Universalism  during  the  past  year."  "  There  are," 
they  say,  (p.  71,)  "  in  the  United  States  alone,  ]  General  Conven- 
tion, 12  State  Conventions,  56  Associations,  about  853  Socie- 
ties, 512  Preachers,  and  513  Meeting-houses  owned  wholly  or 
in  part  by  Universalists.  In  addition  to  those  in  the  United 
States,  there  are  about  15  Societies,  7  Preachers,  and  3  or  4 
Meeting-houses  in  the  British  Provinces." 

It  is,  doubtless,  the  case  that  this  estimate  makes  but  little 
allowance  for  societies  that  have  ceased  to  be,  and  are  among 
the  things  that  were.  Yet  with  every  deduction  that  can  be 
made,  and  that  truth  demands,  it  is  still  quite  apparent,  that 
hundreds  of  enterprising  preachers,  and  a  score  of  editors  are 
constantly  engaged  in  disseminating  from  the  pulpit,  through 
the  press,  and  by  every  means  in  their  power,  their  peculiar 
tenets  throughout  these  United  States.  Every  opportunity  is 
watched  and  carefully  improved  to  bring  themselves  into  no- 
tice. If  a  paragraph  appears  in  any  periodical  reflecting,  in 
the  least  degree,  on  them  or  their  doctrines,  it  is  made  the  ba- 
sis of  a  labored  and  spirited  defence.  If  a  sermon  is  preached 
in  defence  of  the  strict  eternity  of  future  punishment,  it  is 
made  the  occasion  of  a  course  of  Essays,  or  Sermons,  in  reply. 
In  every  possible  way  discussion  is  provoked,  and  the  people 
called  out  to  hear  their  claims. 

To  this  course  they  are  encouraged  to  adhere,  because  in 
part  they  are  aware  that  their  doctrines  are  but  little  under- 
stood by  their  opponents.  "  There  is  one  advantage,"  says 
one  of  their  preachers,  ('  Magazine  and  Advocate,'  III.  134,) 
"  which  Universalists  ever  have  had  over  their  opponents, 
thought  it  may  not  appear  so  to  the  multitude.  Very  few  Partial- 
ists  are  there,  who  are  acquainted  with  what  we  believe,  and  as 
we  believe  it,  with  the  arguments  by  which  we  defend,  and  the 
proofs  we  adduce  to  support  our  positions.  But  where  will 
you  find  a  Universalist,  who  thoroughly  understands  his  own 
system,  and  does  not,  at  the  same  time,  understand  every 
nook  and  corner  in  the  crazy  old  edifice  of  Limitarian  theolo- 
gy?— Seta  Partialist  to  disproving  Universalism,  and  what 
murderous  work  must  he  make  of  logic,  what  perversion  of 
truth,  what  contradiction  of  facts  !  He  brings  forward  pas- 
sages his  own  teachers  have  rejected,  lays  down  positions 


PREFACE.  V 

which  have  nought  to  do  with  the  suhject,  assumes  premises 
denied  by  his  opponent,  and  destitute  of  all  proof,"  and  "  ar- 
gues, ill  his  ignorance,  the  truth  of  the  very  position  contend- 
ed for  by  the  Universalist." 

It  is  by  no  means  uncommon  for  a  Universalist  preacher  to 
accuse  and  convict  one,  whom  he  regards  and  treats  as  an  op- 
ponent, of  being  but  little  acquainted  with  the  peculiarities  of 
the  doctrine  against  which  his  labors  have  been  directed.  The 
author  has  seldom  heard  a  sermon  against  Universal  ism,  that 
was  not  based  on  assumptions,  or  directed  against  principles, 
which  no  well-informed  Universalist  at  the  present  day  ad- 
mits. Such  discourses,  therefore,  must  not  onlybepowerless, 
but  give  an  opponent  a  ^reat  advantage  in  reply. 

Orthodox  preachers,  in  order  to  acquaint  themselves  with 
the  peculiarities  of  the  sect,  have,  in  too  many  cases,  content- 
ed themselves  with  an  examination  of  the  masterly  argument 
of  the  younger  Edwards  against  Chauncy  ;  or  the  '  Calvinism 
Improved'  of  Dr.  Huntington  ;  or  the  writings  of  Winchester 
and  Mitchell.  Thus  informed,  they  have  constructed  a  most 
powerful  argument,  and  completely  overthrown  the  strong 
holds  of  the  early  advocates  or  this  peculiar  creed;  and  they 
wonder  that  any  can  hold  on  to  a  doctrine  so  untenable,  and 
be  Uoiversalists  still.  The  truth  is,  that  not  a  Universalist 
preacher  in  the  land,  so  far  as  the  author  has  been  able  to 
learn,  does  hold  on  to  the  system  thus  attacked.  These  are 
not  their  text-books.  They  that  would  know  what  they  be- 
lieve must  consult  more  modern  writers,  and  gather  their 
creed  from  their  most  recent  publications,  and  inform  them- 
selves thoroughly  in  regard  to  the  latest  discoveries  and  in- 
trenchments  of  the  sect,  or  they  will  labor  in  vain. 

To  aid  such  in  this  investigation  the  following  work  was 
undertaken.  The  results  of  his  inquiries  were  first  given  to 
the  public  by  the  author,  in  a  series  of  seventeen  Essays,  over 
the  signature  of  "  ENOCH,"  through  the  columns  of  the  New 
York  Evangelist.  The  volume  now  presented  is  a  republica- 
tion  of  those  Essays  only  in  part.  The  work  has  subsequently 
been  re-cast,  the  greater  part  entirely  re-written,  and  large  ad- 
ditions made  to  the  whole.  A  list  of  the  authorities  from  which 
information  has  been  drawn  is  appended,  and  great  care  has 
been  taken  to  obtain  the  utmost  accuracy  in  citing  their  testi- 
mony. The  books  themselves  are  such  as  may  be  found  in 
almost  every  Universalist  library,  and  are  constantly  adver- 
tised, with  three  or  four  exceptions,  for  sale  in  their  book- 
stores, as  *  Universalist  Works. 


VI  PREFACE. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that,  though  the  substance  of  this 
Treatise  has  been  before  the  public  several  months,  no  reply 
has  been  attempted,  and  all  allusion  to  the  series  itself,  by  any 
of  their  periodicals,  has  been  most  carefully  avoided,  as  far  as 
possible.  Ordinarily,  as  has  been  remarked,  every  allusion  to 
the  sect  is  replied  to  at  once,  and  every  such  reply  copied 
again  and  again  by  their  periodicals.  In  the  present  case  a 
most  ominous  silence  has  pervaded  their  whole  ranks.  They 
have  not  ventured  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  allegations  here 
made,  nor  can  they.  On  the  other  hand,  when,  about  a  year 
since,  the  author  presented,  from  his  own  pulpit,  in  the  pre- 
sence of  two  at  least  of  their  ministers,  and  a  large  number  of 
the  members  of  one  of  their  societies,  the  leading  features  of 
the  system,  as  they  are  detailed  in  this  volume,  they  took  oc- 
casion to  congratulate  themselves,  and  the  Universalist  pub- 
lic, that  for  once  an  orthodox  preacher  had  told  the  truth. 
"  A  zealous  sister  in  the  faith  who  was  present"  ('  Universal- 
ist Union,'  V.  No.  15,)  thought  him  "  deserving  of  a  vote  of 
thanks  for  introducing  so  much  Universalism  into  his  desk. 
We  think  so  too,"  said  the  editor  of  the  '  Union,'  "  and  hope 
he  will  not  be  weary  in  well  doing.  Let  him  buckle  on  his 
whole  armor." 

Should  a  reply  be  attempted,  it  will  be  of  no  use  to  say  that 
the  statements  of  the  author  are  not  worthy  of  credit,  or  that 
he  has  not  given  the  sense  of  the  writers  to  whose  language 
he  has  referred.  Errors  of  the  press  may  have  been  overlook- 
ed in  the  revision  of  so  many  quotations,  but  these  can  hardly 
affect  the  general  result.  These  quotations  are  too  numerous, 
and  too  evidently  speak  the  same  language,  to  be  misunder- 
stood. If  any  doubt  be  cherished  as  to  the  honesty  of  the  au- 
thor, the  reader  is  respectfully  referred  to  the  books  them- 
selves, where  he  will  find  vastly  more  of  the  same  purport,  of 
which  what  is  here  given  is  but  a  small  specimen. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  work  will  be  of  service  not  only  to  the 
community  at  large,  but  to  theological  students,  and  brethren 
in  the  ministry,  who  have  but  little  time  or  opportunity  to  ac- 
complish a  task,  that  has  proved  so  unpleasant  and  often 
heart-sickening  to 

THE  AUTHOR. 

March  4, 1841. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 

PRIMITIVE    UNIVERSALISM. 

Rise  of  the  Sect  in  America— Doctrine  of  their  first  Preachers— The 
original  system  abandoned— The  new  scheme  and  its  founder —     « 
Transition-state.  .  .  .  .  .  J3 

CHAPTER  II. 

PREVAILING    CREED   OK    UNIVERSALISM. 

Progress  in  error — Essentially  different  from  all  other  schemes — Ar- 
rogance of  wisdom — Not  a  Christian  denomination — Real  and  no- 
minal Universalists — Formed  into  a  system — Embraced  by  ^Uni- 
verealist  preachers  generally — The  Creed— Peculiar  to  this  age 
and  country.  ......  21 

CHAPTER  III. 

FINAL  HAPPINESS   OF  ALL  MANKIND. 

Summary  of  the  creed — Denial  of  every  thing  heretofore  thought 
sacred-— Pretence  of  being  the  plain  doctrine  of  the  Bible — Final 
holiness  and  happiness  universal — Does  not  teach  that  men  will 
be  happy  at  death — Novel  mode  of  interpretation — Bible  a  Jewish 
affair— Credulity.  .....  33 

CHAFfER  IV. 

PENALTY  OF  SIN. 

v  of  Sin — Once  universally  supposed  to  be  endless  death — 
This  position  denied— Final  happiness  never  forfeited  by  Sin- 
How  regarded  by  Murray,  Chauncy,  and  Huntington — Views  of  , 
this  penalty  expressed  by  Modern  Universalists — Strauge  inter- 
pretation of  '  eternal  life' — '  Eternal  death'  not  mentioned  in  the 
Bible.  46 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  V. 

DENIAL   OF  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY. 

Sin  not  an  Infinite  evil— Native  Depravity  denied — The  account  of 
the  Fall  fabulous — Man  is  by  nature  as  good  now  as  Adam  ever 
was  —Origin  of  Sin — God  not  the  lawgiver,  but  the  mind  itself — 
Sin  fulfills  the  will  of  God — The  mind  is  not  the  sinner,  but  the 
flesh — God  the  author  of  sin — Men  not  totally  depraved.  .  61 

CHAPTER  VI. 

NO  PUNISHMENT    AFTER  DEATH. 

Is  sin  punished  after  death- 1—  Views  of  Relly,  Murray,  and  Chaun- 
cy — Sin  punished  only  in  this  life — No  punishment  after  death,  a 
novel  sentiment,  not  twenty-five  years  old — Secession  of  the  Res- 
torationists — Evasion  of  the  question  of  no  punishment  after  death 
— Culpable  indifference  to  the  question  of  a  future  punishment — 
Appeal  to  their  preachers,  and  to  the  people  themselves.  76 

CHAPTER  VII. 

SIN  CEASES  AT  DEATH. — DEATH  NOT  THE  FRUIT  OF  SIN. 

New  Rule  of  Faith — No  common  ground  in  controversy — Sin  ceases 
at  death — Mankind  naturally  mortal — Yet  they  interpret  most  of 
the  threatenings  of  the  Bible,  of  natural  death — Inconsistency — 
Scripture-account  of  the  matter.  ...  89 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL. 

What  becomes  of  man  at  death  ? — Poetic  effusions — Mind  not  ini. 
mortal— Man  has  but  one  nature,  and  that  material  and  mortal — 
Mr.  Ballou's  ignorance — Sketch  of  Mr.  Balfour — His  exegetical 
labors — Man  has  no  immortal  soul,  exegetically  considered — These 
views  generally  received — Source  of  the  doctrine — Materialism — 
Death  the  great  Savior.  ....  101 

CHAPTER  IX. 

NO  ESCAPE  FROM  PUNISHMENT. 

Nature  ofsuffering  for  sin — God'all  just  and  inexorable — Sin  invaria- 
bly punished  in  full — Zeal  for  God's  justice — No  remission  of 
punishment  by  forgiveness — Views  of  Zophar,  David,  Ezra,  and 
the  pious  in  our  day — Question  of  Suicide — Denial  of  its  criminal- 
ity— The  mercy  of  God  excluded.  .  .  .  117 


CONTENTS.  IX 

CHAPTER  X. 

SIN  ITS  OWN  PUNISHMENT. 

Nature  of  Punishment— Sin  fully  punishes  itself— Human  penalties 
•hould  be  abolished— The  Mosaic  Law  unjust— The  more  sin,  the 
leas  punishment — The  doctrine  a  mere  hypothesis— Its  truth  can- 
not be  known.  .....  130 

CHAPTER  XI. 

NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT. 

Design  of  punishment— A  carnal  scheme— Danger  of  misapprehend 
ing  their  admissions — What  does  sin  deserve — Denial  of  all  pun. 
ishment— All  suffering  for  sin  is  the  fruit  of  God's  love,  and  de  . 
signed  only  for  the  sinner's  highest  good — Its  removal,  and  not  its 
infliction,  a  curse — All  m.-n  th«-  children  of  God — Mankind  not  di- 
vided into  two  distinct  classes — Fearful  language  of  Scrip- 
ture.  .......  140 

CHAPTER  XII. 

DENIAL  OF  THK    ATONEMENT. 

No  salvation  from  punishment,  or  deserved  sufferings — Christ  is  not 
a  Savior  in  this  sense — Views  of  Murray,  Winchester,  Chauncy.  '- 
and  Huntington,  on  the  Atonement — Christ  saves  no  one  from 
endless  misery,  or  from  deserved  punishment — Nature  of  salvation 
by  Christ— The  sufferings  of  Christ  have  only  a  moral  effect- 
No  vicarious  Atonement — No  accounting  for  the  Mosaic  sac- 
rifices. .  .  154 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR. 

No  peculiarity  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ— Atonement  the  work  not 
of  Christ,  but  of  the  sinner— Christ  suffered  not  as  much  as  many 
others;  and  in  the  same  sen-;.  .-^  hi-:  apostles  did— The  nature  of 
his  sufferings  the  same  with  theirs— He  saved  the  world,  just  M  \^ 
the  American  revolutionary  fathers  saved  their  country — Agree- 
ment with  Thomas  Paine— Christ  only  saves  men  from  deserving 
punishment— He  is  not  therefore  the  Savior  of  the  whole  world- 
Specimens  of  false  reasoning  from  the  fact  that  Christ  died  for 

171 


X  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

DENIAL  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

No  need  of  an  Incarnate  God — Christ  only  a  man — No  truth  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity — Views  of  Murray — The  Trinity  exploded 
by  Hosea  Ballon — Christ  superior  to  other  men  only  by  office — 
Christ  not  possessed  of  two  natures,  human  and  superhuman — 
Socinianism  favorable  to  devotion — They  profess  to  honor  Christ 
more  than  others.  .  .  .  .  .  186 

CHAPTER  XV. 

GOD'S  FAVOR  NEVER  LOST. 

Recapitulation — God's  favor  can  neither  be  gained  nor  lost — God 
never  displeased  with  sinners — Not  at  all  affected  by  our  sins — 
Never  our  enemy — All  love — Prayer  has  no  effect  upon  God — 
These  views  popular  with  the  vilest  of  men.  .  199 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO    ANOTHER, 

Sense  of  accountability  in  a  future  state  nearly  universal — Effort  to 
get  rid  of  this  responsibility — Mortal  life  not  probationary  to  an- 
other—Conduct here  nothing  to  do  with  condition  hereafter — Bos- 
ton Discussion — No  punishment  after  death  essential  to  the  sys- 
tem— Folly  to  talk  of  securing  an  interest  in  Christ — Paul  and 
Nero  fare  alike  hereafter.  ....  208 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

FAITH  NOT  NECESSARY  TO  FUTURE  HAPPINESS. 

Future  happiness  not  dependent  on  faith — Faith  is  simply  belief  in 
evidence — Faith  not  distinguished  into  various  kinds — Religion 
here  not  necessary  to  happiness  hereafter — Faith  not  necessary  to 
justification — Universalism  aims  only  to  do  men  good  here — Their 
indifference  to  the  woes  of  the  heathen — Have  much  the  same 
anxiety  as  the  apostles  had— But  never  show  it.  .  223 


CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THK  NEW  BIRTH. 

The  New  Birth— Not  necessary  to  future  happiness — Regeneration 
not  a  change  of  nature — Not  a  superhuman  work — No  change  but 
that  of  the  Resurrection  needful  for  entrance  to  Heaven— The 
New  Birth  really  denied — Common  doctrine  ridiculed — Myste- 
riousness  of  Regeneration  denied— The  fact  of  Regeneration  easi- 
ly known — To  be  hereafter  experienced  by  all — Regeneration 
nothing  more  than  Reformation,  or  a  change  of  party — Experience 
of  all  the  saints  contradicted.  .  «  236 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  RESURRECTION  STATE. 

Resurrection — Time  of  it  indefinite — Its  nature — Resurrection  of  the 
whole  man — At  death  man  annihilated — Man  and  beast  perish 
alike— Resurrection  is  a  new  creatiou — Resurrection  denied— 
The  same  body  not  raised  again — All  equal  in  the  Resurrec- 
tion. .  .  .  250 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  DAY    OF  JUDGMENT. 

Accountability  confessed,  but  not  as  to  a  future  state— Views  of  th« 
Pharisees  in  the  Savior's  day— Scripture  language  about  the  Judg- 
ment— How  understood  at  the  time — The  day  of  Judgment  not  in 
a  future  state — Mr.  Balfour's  labors — Heb.  ix.  27 — The  common 
doctrine  discarded  by  them  all.  ...  261 


CHAPTER  XXL 

DEVIL  AND  HIS  ANGELS. 

English  Translation  of  the  Bible— Mr.  Kneeland's  version— Neither 
angels  nor  devils — Satan  a  symbolical  being  only — Angels  only  our 
fellow-men — Devil  is  the  carnal  mind — No  agreement  as  to  the 
identity  of  the  devil — Variety  of  definitions — Sadduceeaua.  273 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

CHRISTIANS  HAVE    NO    ORDINANCES. 

RESULTS — Christian  Institutions — The  Sabbath  a  human  device — 
Our  Sunday  not  the  Sabbath — The  Sabbath  ceased  with  the  Mo- 
saic dispensation — Our  Sunday  a  weekly  festival,  but  not  holy — 
Sabbath-journeying — Baptism — Not  indispensable  to  Church- 
membership — A  rite  of  initiation  only — Never  intended  for  our 
observance — Lord's  Supper — Various  opinions — Not  binding  on 
the  conscience — Most  of  them  repudiate  it — Those  who  do  believe 
in  it  do  not  make  it  a  test  of  fellowship — Churches  rare — A  matter 
of  expediency — More  than  two-thirds  of  the  Societies  have  none 
— They  are  never  large.  ....  284 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

FRUITS  OF  UMVERSAL1SM.  * 

Moral  efficacy — Fruits  of  Orthodoxy — Ministry  of  Christ  and  Paul — 
Such  should  be  its  fruits  if  true — Their  own  concessions — Want 
of  piety — No  public  measures  of  usefulness — Dark  prospects — 
Relish  for  piety  not  common — Disguised  Infidels — Character  of 
leaders — Ropes  of  sand— A  lifeless  theory — Sleepy  congregations-- 
Hirelings  poorly  paid — Prayer-meetings  rare — Disastrous  tenden- 
cies— Hypocrites — A  good  description — Mr.  Balfour's  forebo- 
dings and  experience — Philadelphia — New  York — No  memorials 
of  good  done — Affinity  with  infidelity — No  secret,  nor  family-pray  - 
er — Too  great  a  risk.  ....  302 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

LEARNING  OF  UNIVERSALIST  PREACHERS. 

The  work  done — The  charge  conceded — Utterly  unlike  every  other 
scheme — A  mass  of  heresies — A  man's  creed  of  no  consequence — 
Latitudinarians — A  modern  Pantheon — Is  this  the  Bride  ? — Their 
peculiar  claims  on  our  confidence — Literary  character  of  James 
Relly— of  John  Murray— Of  Hosea  Ballou— Of  Abner  Kneeland 
— Of  Walter  Balfour — Of  the  junior  preachers— Qualifications 
necessary  to  their  preachers— Of  A.  B.  Grosh— Of  I.  D.  William 
son — Of  their  whole  ministry — Final  appeal  to  the  reader.  323 


UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

PRIMITIVE     UNIVERSALISM. 

Rise  of  the  Sect  in  America — Doctrine  of  their  first  Preach- 
ers— The  original  system  abandoned — The  new  scheme 
and  its  founder — Transition-state.  ' 

"  Sing,  muse  !  (if  such  a  theme  so  dark,  so  long, 
May  find  a  muse  to  grace  it  with  a  song,) 
By  what  unseen  and  unsuspected  arts, 
The  serpent,  Error,  twines  round  human  hearts; 
Tell  where  she  lurks,  beneath  what  flow'ry  shades, 
That  not  a  glimpse  of  genuine  light  pervades, 
The  pois'nous,  black,  insinuating  worm 
Successfully  conceals  her  loathsome  form." — COWPER. 

"  THE  Father  of  Universalism  in  America"  was  JOHN 
MURRAY.  Born  of  pious  parents  in  Alton,  Hampshire, 
England,  at  an  early  age  he  became  a  follower  of 
Wesley  and  a  preacher  of  his  views.  Afterwards 
brought,  by  a  constant  round  of  folly  and  dissipation 
during  a  short  residence  in  London,  to  the  borders  of 
starvation,  he  was  again  awakened  by  the  preaching 
of  Whitefield,  and  soon  became  distinguished  for  his 
fluency  in  prayer  and  exhortation.  Shortly  after,  he 
became  a  follower  of  James  Relly,  who  was  then 
2 


14  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Winchester,  Chauncy.  Huntington. 

preaching  Universalism  in  London,  and  who  appears 
to  have  been  the  originator  of  the  sect  in  England.  In 
1770,  Mr.  Murray  came  over  to  America,  and  preach- 
ed his  new  faith  first  at  Cranbery  in  New  Jersey,  then 
in  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  afterwards  in  New 
England.  At  Gloucester,  Massachusetts,  he  became 
pastor  of  a  Universalist  Society,  where  he  continued, 
until,  in  1793,  he  removed  to  Boston,  and  was  installed 
over  the  First  Universalist  Society  in  that  town,  where 
he  died  in  1815,  in  the  75th  year  of  his  age. 

Early  in  1781,  Elhanan  Winchester,  a  popular 
preacher  connected  with  the  Baptists,  and  settled  over 
the  First  Baptist  Church  in  that  city,  adopted  and  be- 
gan to  preach  Universal  Salvation.  In  1784,  appear- 
ed a  work  in  favor  of  this  doctrine,  attributed  by  com- 
mon consent  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  Chauncy,  pastor 
of  the  First  Congregational  Church  in  Boston,  then  in 
his  80th  year.  Forty  years  before  he  had  distinguished 
himself  as  a  writer-  against  vital  religion,  by  the  publi- 
cation of  his  "  Seasonable  Thoughts,"  in  which  he 
endeavored  to  destroy  the  influence  of  Mr.  Whitefield, 
and  boldly  maintained  that  "  the  great  revival  of 
1740"  was  a  wretched  excitement,  fraught  only  with 
evil  to  the  churches,  and  as  such  ought  to  be  put  down 
by  all  well-wishers  to  society. 

Another  work  in  favor  of  this  doctrine  appeared  in 
1795,  called  "  Calvinism  improved,"  by  the  Rev. 
Joseph  Huntington,  D.  D.,  pastor  of  a  church  in  Co- 
ventry, Connecticut.  Though  written  many  years  pre- 
viously, it  was  not  published  until  the  author's  death. 


PRIMITIVE  UNIVERSALISM.  15 

Early  views.  Creed  of  Huiuingion. 

These,  and  especially  the  two  former,  became  the 
principal  pillars  of  Universalism  in  this  country,  until 
the  commencement  of  the  19th  century.  The  views 
which  they  embraced  differed  chiefly  from  those  of  the 
Christian  church  generally,  in  the  article  of  future  end- 
less punishment.  They  believed,  for  the  most  part,  in 
the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  Christianity,  with  this 
one  exception.  Their  hopes  of  universal  salvation 
were  based  on  the  atonement  of  Christ,  whom  they  re- 
garded as  constituting,  in  his  superior  nature,  with  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  one  only  God,  or  as 
God  himself.  They  expected  to  obtain  eternal  life, 
only  on  the  ground  that  Christ  had  died  for  all  men, 
and  so  had  delivered  them  and  the  whole  human  family 
from  the  condemnation  of  the  law.  They  believed 
most  firmly  in  future  punishment,  and  taught  that  the 
misery  of  unbelievers  in  a  future  state  would  be,  not 
only  unspeakably  dreadful,  but  of  very  long  conti- 
nuance. 

Dr.  Huntington  was  originally  a  Calvinist,  and  at- 
tempted to  deduce  from  those  views  the  doctrine  of 
Universal  Salvation.  "  It  was  not  by  giving  up  the 
peculiarities  of  his  former  views  ('  Mod.  Hist  of  Uni- 
versalism,' p.  384,)  that  he  became  a  Universalist,  but 
by  grafting  upon  them  the  hypothesis  of  universal  sal- 
vation, and  by  carrying  through  the  system  of  Calvin 
in  regard  to  all  mankind,  as  it  had  been  generally  done 
in  reference  to  the  elect  alone.  He  held  to  the  sinner's 
absolute  depravity  by  nature ;  the  justice  of  the  sen- 
tence of  endless  misery,  which  he  saw  plainly  threat- 


I 
16  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Creed  of  Murray,  and  of  Winchester. 

ened  in  Scripture ;  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
whereby  Christ  suffered  for  us  the  penalty  of  the  divine 
law,  our  guilt  having  been  set  to  his  account,  as  our 
federal  head  and  sponsor,  and  his  obedience  in  like 
manner  transferred  to  us,  and  thus  proclaimed  a  salva- 
tion for  man  solely  on  the  ground  of  free  grace  and 
mercy."  These,  for  substance,  werealso  the  views  of 
Chauncy  and  Winchester. 

Similar  were  the  sentiments  of  a  large  proportion  of 
the  early  disciples  of  Murray.  Their  notions  of  reli- 
gion were  derived,  for  the  most  part,  from  Calvinistic 
preachers,  and  the  Westminster  Catechism ;  and  their 
conversion  to  Universalism  was,  in  most  cases,  a  car- 
rying out  of  those  ideas  of  the  atonement,  so  as  to  in- 
clude the  whole  human  family. 

Mr.  Murray  believed  that 

'« In  Adam's  fall 
We  sinned  all," 

and  so  were  brought  under  condemnation ;  that  in  like 
manner,  all  mankind  were  from  eternity  identified  with 
the  second  Mam,  who,  by  his  death,  made  an  expiation 
for  the  sins  of  every  human  being,  and  bore  the  penalty 
of  the  law  for  all,  and  not  the  elect  alone,  so  that  all 
are  thereby  exempted  from  condemnation,  and  made, 
through  him,  partakers  of  endless  life ;  that  those  who 
die  in  unbelief  will  lie  down  in  sorrow  and  dwell  in 
darkness,  until  the  judgment  to  come.  "  Mr.  Murray, 
('  Mod.  His.'  pp.  431-2,)  was  not  a  Unitarian.  Mr. 
Winchester  maintained  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  per- . 
haps  in  not  a  very  dissimilar  manner.  They  both  held 
to  the  existence  of  misery  in  a  future  state." 


PRIMITIVE  UNIVERSALISM.  17 

Creed  of  Chauncy.  Transition. 

Dr.  Chauncy,  after  making  numerous  "  extracts  from 
the  writings  of  ancient  authors  on  his  side  of  the  ques- 
tion," makes  this  observation  : — "  It  is  fully  and  freely 
acknowledged,  by  all  the  above  writers,  that  many 
among  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Adam  will  pass 
through  a  state  of  unutterable  misery,  before  they  will 
be  prepared  for,  and  admitted  to  the  joys  of  God's  pres- 
ence in  the  heavenly  world.  Would  to  God  it  might 
be  realized  as  an  undoubted  truth,  that  there  is  the  same 
reason,  from  Scripture,  to  believe  there  is  a  HELL  as  a 
HEAVEN.  And  those  who  are  infidels  as  to  the  former, 
would  do  well  to  take  care  lest  they  should  know  from 
their  own  experience,  the  horrors  of  that  dreadful 
place"  And,  on  another  page,  he  distinctly  states 
that  some  of  the  wicked  "  will  be  tormented  for  ages 
of  ages."  All  that  he  contends  for,  in  regard  to  the 
duration  of  future  punishment,  is,  that  it  will  not  be 
strictly  endless. 

But  Universalism  is  not  what  it  was.  They  who 
judge  of  it  by  the  writings  of  either  Chauncy,  Hunting- 
ton,  Murray,  or  Winchester,  form  a  very  erroneous  idea 
of  the  system.  Since  that  period,  it  has  undergone  an 
almost  constant  process  of  transition.  This  we  learn 
from  the  confession  of  its  warmest  friends.  Mr.  Whitte- 
more  in  his  "  Modern  History  of  Universalism,"  says, 
(p.  431,)  "The  radical  changes,  which  have  taken 
place  in  the  opinions  of  American  Universalists,  consti- 
tute one  of  the  most  interesting  traits  in  their  history." 
Of  course,  therefore,  the  present  system  is  not  merely  a 
modification  of  the  old,  but  radically  different.  It  is 
2* 


18  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT  IS. 

Rapid  changes.  Early  views  discarded. 

based  on  other  principles,  and  differs  more  from  its  ori- 
ginal self,  than  at  first  it  differed  from  the  prevailing  be- 
lief of  the  Christian  world. 

These  changes  have  been  rapid.  One  by  one,  al- 
most every  doctrine,  heretofore  regarded  as  essential  to 
Christianity,  has,  within  a  period  of  forty  years,  been  at 
first  undermined,  and  then  thrown  away  and  treated 
with  contempt.  The  author  of  the  "  Modern  Histo- 
ry," says,  (p.  432,)  "  We  apprehend  that  as  early  as 
1800,  very  essential  departures  had  been  made  ;  and 
finally,  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  atonement, 
with  all  kindred  notions,  were  discarded  by  the  whole 
denomination,  with  a  very  few  exceptions."  The  ut- 
most latitude  of  opinion  appears  to  have  been  allowed 
among  both  ministers  and  members  of  the  sect,  so 
long  as  they  agreed  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  end- 
less misery. 

The  Biographer  of  Murray  says,  (pp.  279.  280,)  "  his 
views  of  the  nature  of  salvation  differ  essentially  from 
those  now  entertained  by  Universalists.  Indeed,  it  is 
now  well  known,  that  the  method  by  which  he  proved 
the  final  salvation  of  all  men,  and  his  interpretations  of 
Scripture,  differed  essentially  from  those  of  the  denomi- 
nation generally."  They,  who  now  bear  the  name, 
appear  to  have  agreed  with  him  in  scarcely  more  than 
the  results  to  which  he  came.  They  have  since  discov- 
ered that  he  was  all  his  life  in  the  most  essential  error, 
— that  his  views  were  unscriptural  and  unreasonable, 
and  are  to  be  discarded. 

These  changes  are  to  be  attributed,  in  the  main,  to 


PRIMITIVE    UNIVERSALISM.  19 

jlosea  Ballon.  System  not  complete. 

the  influence  of  Hosea  Ballou,  Sen.,  who  more  than 
any  other  man  deserves  the  appellation  of the  father  of 
Universalism  as  it  now  is:  (see  '  Mod.  Hist'  p.  432.) 
Mr.  Ballou  began  to  preach  about  the  year  1791,  be- 
fore he  had  completed  his  twenty-first  year.  At  this 
early  period,  with  but  very  limited  opportunities  and 
attainments,  he  began  his  great  work  of  reform.  In  a 
letter,  bearing  date,  Nov.  25th,  1829,  to  the  author  of 
the  "  Modern  History,"  he  gives  the  following  account 
of  the  dispatch  with  which  he  exploded  one  notion  af- 
ter another  ; — "  I  had  preached  but  a  short  time  before 
my  mind  was  entirely  freed  from  the  perplexities  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  common  notion  of  atone- 
ment. But  in  making  these  advances,  I  had  the  assist- 
ance of  no  author  or  writer.  As  fast  as  those  old  doc- 
trines were,  by  any  means,  rendered  the  subjects  of  in- 
quiry, in  my  mind,  they  became  exploded!"  Like  one 
of  old  he  could,  therefore,  say  with  great  propriety, 
"  veni,  vidi,  vid :"  I  came,  I  saw,  I  conquered.  Won- 
derful man !  and  so  very  young !  who  would  have 
thought  it  ? 

Whether  other  changes  as  radical  wHll  yet  be  made, 
or  not,  none  can  tell.  That  the  system  is  now  com- 
plete, none  can  pretend.  There  are  questions  of  great 
moment,  to  which  no  definite  answer  has  thus  far  been 
given.  The  utmost  diversity  of  opinion  prevails  in  re- 
spect to  some  important  matters.  Hosea  Ballou  is  still 
alive,  and  may  yet  make  further  discoveries.  At  his 
death  some  Elisha  may  receive  his  mantle,  and  with 
far  bolder  strides  lead  the  way  into  some  hitherto  un-» 


20  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Sympathy  of  Infidels.  Design  of  this  work. 

trodden  field.  Other  striplings  may  explode  many  an- 
tiquated notions  that  still  find  a  place  in  the  belief  of 
these  liberal  Christians.  Soon  the  very  name  of  Chris- 
tianity may  be  discarded  because  of  its  opprobrious  ori- 
gin. ("  The  disciples  were  called  Christians  first  in 
Antioch :"  most  probably  by  the  heathen,  in  reproach.) 
Already  some  have  been  bold  enough  to  outstrip  their 
leader  in  this  matter,  and  with  Abner  Kneeland,  who 
for  more  than  twenty  years  was  in  high  repute  among 
them,  to  cast  away  the  Bible  itself.  Deists  and  Athe- 
ists, also,  have,  of  late,  so  extensively  made  common 
cause  with  them — many  such  holding  offices  of  trust  in 
the  societies — that  they  may  yet  become  the  majority. 
I  presume  not  to  say  what  these  transitionists  will 
yet  become.  It  is  proposed  merely  to  make  the  inqui- 
ry— What  is  the  present  prevailing  creed  of  Universal- 
ism  1  and  to  show  that,  in  its  present  form,  it  bears  but 
little  resemblance  to  what  the  wisdom  and  piety  of  the 
Christian  world,  for  nearly  a  score  of  centuries,  have 
united  in  exhibiting  as  the  faith  taught  by  Christ  and 
his  disciples.  In  this  exposition  the  appeal  will,  in 
every  instance,  be  made  to  their  own  writings,  particu- 
larly those  that  are  received  with  the  greatest  favor 
among  themselves.  It  will  thus  be  shown  that  Uni- 
versalism  has  but  little  more  of  Christianity  than  the 
name,  is  a  crafty  system  of  covert  infidelity,  and  does 
not  deserve  to  be  ranked  as  a  Christian  denomination. 


CHAPTER  II. 

PREVAILING    CREED    OF   UNIVERSALISM. 

Progress  in  error — Essentially  different  from  all  other 
schemes — Arrogance  of  wisdom — Not  a  Christian  denomi- 
nation— Real  and  nominal  Universalists — Formed  into  a 
system — Embraced  by  Vniversalist  preachers  generally — 
The  Creed — Peculiar  to  this  age  and  country. 

"  The  breach,  though  small  at  first,  soon  opening  wide, 
In  rushes  folly  with  a  full-moon  tide  ; 
Then  welcome  errors  of  whatever  size, 
To  justify  it  by  a  thousand  lies." — COWPER. 

UNIVERSALISM  began  its  career  with  a  denial  of  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment.  It  was  enough,  at  first, 
to  promise  heaven  at  last  to  all  mankind  without  dis- 
tinction. It  troubled  itself  but  little  about  other  doc- 
trines so  long  as  this  was  conceded. 

But  error  is  never  stationary.  The  mind  that  embra- 
ces it  finds  no  rest.  Dissatisfied  with  the  ground  on 
which  its  hopes  are  based,  it  is  constantly  shifting  its 
position,  or  forming  new  entrenchments.  One  error 
has  a  strong  affinity  for  every  other.  They  can  nestle 
together  in  the  same  bosom.  Easy  is  the  downward 
path.  They  who  enter  it  "  wax  worse  and  worse,  de- 
cieving  and  being  deceived." 

Falsehood  never  can  harmonize  with  truth.  If  graft- 
ed thereon  it  is  only  an  unsightly  excrescence.  The 
whole  scheme  of  religious  truth  must  be  remodeled  be- 


22  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT   IS. 

Novelty  of  the  system,.  Arrogance. 

fore  it  can  even  seem  to  harmonize  with  a  single  error. 
To  make  the  Bible  teach  the  final  happiness  of  all  the 
human  race,  its  threatenings  must  be  silenced,  or  limited 
in  their  application.  Every  opposing  doctrine  must  be 
made  to  bend,  or  be  cast  away.  Philosophy  and  criti- 
cism must  be  called  in  to  make  the  Scriptures  speak,  in 
all  their  parts,  but  one  voice.  A  theological  system,  al- 
most entirely  new,  is  the  product. 

This  system  of  belief,  now  openly  avowed  and  pub- 
lished to  the  world,  bears  but  little  resemblance  to  any 
other.  It  is  neither  Calvinism,  Antinomianism,  Ar- 
minianism,  nor  yet  Pelagianism.  With  Socinianism  it 
sympathizes  to  some  extent,  but  never  identifies  itself. 
It  proclaims  all  other  creeds  to  be  the  offspring  of  Igno- 
rance, Superstition,  and  Bigotry  ;  utterly  unworthy  to 
be  received  by  immortal  beings.  It  speaks  of  Calvin- 
ism with  unmeasured  severity.  The  editor  of  the  life 
of  Murray  says,  (pp.  275,  6,)  that,  when  Murray  be- 
gan to  preach,  "  Calvinism,  rank  and  impure  as  it  came 
from  the  hands  of  its  author,  was  the  prevailing  doc- 
trine of  this  country.  It  was  adapted  to  the  stern  and 
unenlightened  natures  of  our  Puritan  forefathers.  Few 
are  sensible  of  its  grossness  and  absurdity." 

Thus  even  "the  Pilgrim  Fathers"  were  ignorant, 
superstitious,  and  bigoted  in  the  estimation  of  this  new 
sect.  Calvin  was  "  rank  and  impure,"  Wesley  a  babe, 
and  all  the  Christian  world  beside,  both  learned  and  un- 
learned, the  victims  of  priestcraft  or  prejudice.  The 
progress  of  Universalism  is  called  the  triumph  of  reason 
over  bigotry  and  falsehood.  "  The  strong  energies  of 


PREVAILING  CREED  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  23 


inkers.  All  else  all  wrong. 

reason,  ('  Gospel  Anchor,'  II.  5,)  gathering  fresh  im- 
pulse from  revelation,  have  made  sad  havoc  with  the 
forgeries  of  antiquity.  Men  have  dared  to  think  for 
themselves,  and  some  begin  to  claim  the  right  of  judg- 
ing for  themselves.  In  proportion  as  man  throws  off 
the  manacles  of  bigotry,  the  faith  of  the  impartial  good- 
ness of  their  Creator  will  prevail."  They  are  the  only 
Freethinkers  in  the  world — none  else  dare  to  think  or 
judge,  but  as  they  are  bidden  ! 

In  thus  arraying  themselves  against  all  other  creeds, 
Universalists  confess  that  they  have  no  sympathy  with 
other  religious  systems.  They  stand  alone  in  the  reli- 
gious world.  If  any  other  creed  is  true,  theirs  is  wretch- 
edly false.  This  they  openly  avow.  In  an  "  Exposition 
and  Defence  of  Universalism,"  by  I.  D.  Williamson,  of 
New  York,  the  writer  states,  (p.  215,)  "  I  have  no  disposi- 
tion to  conceal  the  fact,  that  there  is  a  wide  and  irrecon- 
cilable difference  between  us  and  our  opposers  ;  nor  can 
it  be  denied  that  if  we  are  right,  they  are  wrong,  not 
merely  in  some  small  points,  but  radically,  and,  I  had 
almost  said,  totally  wrong.  This  is  a  truth  with  which 
we  are  well  acquainted :  and  that  man  pursues  a  mis- 
taken policy,  nay,  even  a  wicked  course  of  hypocrisy, 
who  attempts  to  conceal  this  fact.  There  is  no  man- 
ner of  use  in  endeavoring  to  make  it  appear,  that  there 
is  but  a  shade  of  difference  between  us  and  other  de- 
nominations, for  there  is  a  difference,  high  as  heaven, 
wide  as  the  earth  ;  a  difference  as  hopelessly  and  utterly 
irreconcilable  as  HgJit  and  darkness  ;  and  there  is  no  dis- 
guising the  obvious  truth,  that,  if  on*  system  is  true  the 


24  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


Anti-Christian.  Whom  they  claim. 

other  is  false,  desperately  and  hopelessly  false,  I  had 
almost  said,  in  its  whole  length  and  breadth"  Either, 
theni  they,  or  we,  are  utterly  unworthy  of  the  Chris- 
tian name.  Theirs,  or  ours,  must  be  a  most  unblushing 
system  of  unbelief  and  falsehood. 

In  asserting  that  Universalism  is  an  Anti-Christian 
system,  let  me  not,  therefore,  be  charged  with  unchari- 
tableness  or  bigotry.  Its  advocates  themselves  allow, 
as  appears  from  the  above  extract,  that  such  is  its 
character,  if  our  scheme,  and  the  scheme  of  the  Chris- 
tian world  be  true.  The  alternative  is  unavoidable. 

Nor  let  the  kind-hearted  Christian  be  any  longer  im- 
posed upon  with  the  idea,  that  the  Universalist  is  as 
much  a  Christian  as  any  one,  only  that  he  does  not  be- 
lieve in  endless  punishment ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is 
not  worth  while  to  enter  into  any  dispute  with  him.  It 
is  often  said, — "  there  are  good  people  in  all  denomi- 
nations," and  among  these  are  reckoned  Universalists. 
But,  by  their  own  showing,  they  and  we  cannot  be 
members  of  the  same  household.  Either  they  are  the 
church,  wholly  and  entirely,  or  they  have  no  part  nor 
lot  in  it.  So  entirely  do  they  differ  from  all  Christian 
denominations,  that  it  is  no  breach  of  Christian  charity, 
if  our  views  are  in  the  main  correct,  to  expose  and  op- 
pose theirs  with  all  our  might. 

I  say  not,  that  all  who  bear  the  name  of  Universal- 
ists have  thus  forsaken  the  ancient  landmarks.  This 
name,  it  is  claimed,  belong  to  all  who  agree  in  the  be- 
lief of  the  final  happiness  of  all  mankind.  In  "  the  Plain 
Guide"  (p.  15,)  it  is  said,  "  The  sentiments  by  which 


PREVAILING  CREED  OF  UNTVEKSALISM.  25 

Motley  aspect.  Two  classes. 

Universalists  are  distinguished,  is  this :  that  at  last  every 
individual  of  the  human  race  shall  become  holy  and 
happy"  Again,  (pp.  16,  17,)  "  all  persons  who  truly 
believe  in  the  eventual  salvation  of  all  mankind  by  the 
grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  are  Universalists."  "  It 
makes  no  difference  what  are  the  individual's  views 
concerning  punishment,  if  he  holds  the  doctrine  above 
described."  "  We  wish  it  distinctly  understood,  that 
Universalists  admit  of  no  distinction  in  the  denomination, 
on  account  of  difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
punishment.  They  are  all  one — they  all  go  for  one 
thing." 

Thus  every  variety  of  doctrine  may  find  a  home  in 
this  motley  sect,  if  it  be  linked  to  the  belief  of  Universal 
Salvation.  To  swell  their  number  they  welcome  them 
all.  They  search  the  records  of  the  church  from  the 
age  of  the  apostles,  and  whenever  they  find  one  express- 
ing his  doubts  as  to  the  endless  duration  of  the  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  they  forthwith  proclaim  him  one  of 
them.  In  this  manner  they  endeavor  to  show  that  their 
sect  is  ancient  and  honorable. 

But  if  one  of  these  motley  religionists  renounces  Uni- 
versalism,  he  and  the  world  are  at  once  told,  that  he 
never  was  a  Universalist,  except  in  name.  He  never 
received  the  system,  and  embraced  it  with  all  his  heart. 
In  the  ' Plain  Guide'  the  writer  says,  (pp.278,  9,) 
"  There  are  two  kinds  of  Universalists — positive  and  ne- 
gative Universalists."  "  Negative  Universalists  are  those 
who  merely  assent  to  the  doctrine.  They  believe,  they 
say,  that  all  men  will  at  last  be  saved.  They  think  the 
3 


26  UNIYERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  System.  Important  distinction. 

doctrine  of  endless  misery  a  very  bad  doctrine,  and  en- 
tertain no  doubts  of  the  final  happiness  of  the  whole 
world.  This  is  the  amount  of  their  religion.  Now 
there  is  a  wide  difference  between  these,  arid  those  we 
are  pleased  to  call  positive  Universalists." 

None  but  those  who  receive  the  system,  as  now  pro- 
fessed and  taught  by  the  leaders  of  the  sect,  are  regard- 
ed as  reed  Universalists.  Let  this  distinction  be  careful- 
ly marked.  After  many  and  violent  changes  these  doc- 
trines have  been  reduced  to  a  system,  distinct  and  inde- 
pendent, taught  from  the  preacher's  desk,  and  in  nume- 
rous publications,  occasional  and  periodical.  The  at- 
tempt has  been  undertaken  to  lead,  not  only  nominal 
Universalists,  but  the  world,  into  the  belief  of  a  theo- 
logical system,  which  strikes  a  death-blow  at  all  those 
doctrines  which  are  dear  to  the  hearts  of  Christians. 
They  call  upon  us  to  receive  a  system,  as  the  substance 
of  what  the  Bible  teaches,  that  is  as  unlike  what  wre 
and  our  fathers  have  believed,  as  day  and  night.  This 
they  themselves  confess.  In  the  '  Expositor  and  Uni- 
versalist  Review,'  for  September,  1839,  appears  an  ar- 
ticle written  by  Mr.  Sawyer,  of  New  York,  designed  to 
show  that  Professor  Tholuck,  of  Germany,  either  is,  or 
was,  a  Universalist.  "  Of  what  avail  is  it,  for  instance," 
he  says,  (p.  341,)  "  to  assert,  <  that  the  whole  spirit  of 
Tholuck's  theology  is  as  dissonant  from  that  of  Ameri- 
can Universalists,  as  music  from  discord  V  No  one 
ever  pretended  that  Tholuck's  theological  system  was 
consonant  with  that  of  American  Universalists.  It  was 
asserted — '  that  his  belief  was  nothing  less  than  that  all 


PREVAILING  CREED  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  27 


Should  be  known.  Prevalence  of  the  system. 

men  will  actually  be  saved.'  His  agreement  with  its 
was  limited  to  this  single  point.19 

Now,  before  we  embrace  the  doctrine  of  Universal 
Salvation,  it  becomes  us  to  look  well  to  the  end  of  the 
way ;  to  ask,  "  where  does  this  path  lead  ?" — "  what 
is  the  next  step  ?"  Let  us  know  the  whole  of  the  creed  ; 
let  us  view  it  in  all  its  nakedness,  stripped  of  its  orna- 
ments and  borrowed  garments,  and  ask, — "  Is  this  the 
daughter  of  Zion  !" 

To  a  faithful  exposition  of  this  novel  and  strange 
creed,  I  shall  now  direct  the  reader's  attention. 
Though  but  little  understood,  and  less  cared-for  by 
the  great  body  of  Universalists,  it  is  received  and  ad- 
vocated by  nearly  every  preacher  in  the  denomination. 
A.  C.  Thomas,  in  his  '  Theological  Discussion'  with 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely,  states,  (p.  25,)  that  his  "  own  views" 
"  are  the  views  of  a  large  majority  of  American  Univer- 
salists." And  of  another  system  of  Universalism,  which 
he  calls  "  Calvinism  Improved,"  he  says  that  "  Ed- 
ward Mitchell,  of  New  York,  is,  I  believe,  (1834,)  the 
only  public  advocate  of  this  form  of  Universalism  in  the 
United  States." 

The  reader  may,  therefore,  rest  assured,  that  the  sys- 
tem now  to  be  exhibited  is,  with  a  few  exceptions  that 
will  hereafter  be  stated,  the  creed  of  Universalists  in 
this  country,  as  taught  by  their  standard  authors,  and 
preached  from  their  pulpits.  In  the  form  in  which  it  is 
now  to  be  presented  it  is  found  in  none  of  their  publi- 
cations. And  yet  every  article  as  here  exhibited  is 
gathered  from  their  writings,  where  it  is  plainly  stated 
and  boldly  defended. 


28  UN1VERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


The  Creed. 


The  following  Synopsis  may  properly  be  called 
THE  CREED  OF  AMERICAN  UNIVERSALISM. 

1.  All  mankind  will  eventually  become  holy  and 
happy. 

2.  Final  happiness  never  has  been,  and  never  can  be, 
forfeited  by  sin. 

3.  Mankind  are  born  as  pure  as  Adam  was  when  he 
was  created. 

4.  Sin  has  its  origin,  not  in  the  mind,  but  in  the  ani- 
mal nature. 

5.  Man  never  becomes  totally  depraved. 

6.  Sin  is  punished  only  in  this  life. 

7.  Sin  ceases  with  the  death  of  the  body. 

8.  Mankind  are  naturally  and  originally  mortal. 

9.  Man  has  no  immortal  soul. 

10.  Every  man  will  inevitably  suffer  to  the  full  ex- 
tent of  his  deserts. 

11.  Sin  fully  punishes  itself. 

12.  There  is  properly  no  such  thing  as  punishment. 

13.  Christ  saves  no  one  from  any  deserved  suffering. 

14.  There  was  nothing  peculiar  in  Christ's  death. 

15.  Jesus  Christ  was  only  a  man  of  superior  gifts. 

16.  There  is  no  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Deity. 

17.  The  favor  of  God  can  neither  be  gained  nor  lost. 

18.  Mortal  life  is  not,  in  any  sense,  a  state  of  pro- 
bation for  another  state  of  being. 

19.  Faith  has  no  connection  with  happiness  in  a  fu- 
ture state. 

20.  Regeneration  is  merely  a  change  of  party. 

21.  All  mankind  will  be  equal  in  the  Resurrection. 


PREVAILING  CREED  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  29 

Peculiar  to  this  age,  and  Country. 

22.  There  will  not  be  a  day  of  general  judgment  in 
the  resurrection-state. 

23.  There  are  no  merely  spiritual  beings,  called  an- 
gels, either  holy  or  unholy. 

24.  The  Christian  Sabbath  is  a  mere  human  device. 

25.  Church  ordinances  are  of  doubtful  utility. 

Such  are  some  of  the  peculiarities  of  this  novel  sys- 
tem. The  most  of  them  appear  in  nearly  all  then:  sys- 
tematic exhibitions  of  their  own  faith,  and  are  regarded 
as  essential  to  their  scheme.  One  after  another  these 
tenets  have  been  put  forth  as  circumstances  required. 
As  they  now  appear  they  form  a  complete  chain,  the 
links  of  which  are  mutually  dependent ; — a  chain  most 
difficult  to  break  when  once  it  has  been  thrown  around 
the  heart.  To  most  it  proves  to  be  an  everlasting  chain 
of  darkness. 

This  creed  is  peculiar  to  this  age  and  country.  It  is 
the  production  of  men  who  are  yet  on  the  stage  of  ac- 
tion. It  had  no  being  fifty  years  since.  There  have 
been  those  in  former  ages  who  denied  that  the  misery 
of  the  wicked  in  a  future  state  would  be  strictly  endless. 
And  so  others  of  these  articles  have  been  maintained 
singly  in,  perhaps,  every  age  of  the  world.  But  we 
search  in  vain  for  any  evidence,  that  the  system  of  mo- 
dern Universalism,  here  exhibited,  had  any  existence 
before  it  was  devised,  as  occasion  required,  by  Hosea 
Ballou,  Sen.,  of  the  city  of  Boston. 

Nor  is  this  creed  now  received  by  any  religious  so- 
ciety out  of  this  country.  The  nearest  approach  to  it 
is  found  in  that  product  of  scepticism  and  "  philosophy, 
3* 


30  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT    IS. 

The  Sect  abroad.  Mr.  Thorn. 

falsely  so  called,"  which  prevails  in  Germany,  and  has 
received  the  names  of  Rationalism,  Naturalism,  and 
Neology.  But  yet  no  one  maintains  that  the  two  sys- 
tems are  identical,  or  that  there  are  not  important  dis- 
tinctions between  them. 

In  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  there  is  neither  a  socie- 
ty, nor  preacher,  that  holds  these  views.  The  system  of 
American  Universalism  has  not  a  single  defender  in  the 
British  Isles,  so  far  as  is  known  in  this  country.  There 
are  those  who  believe  in  the  final  happiness  of  all  man- 
kind, but  on  far  different  grounds  from  what  have  been 
presented  above.  In  London  there  is  not  a  society 
that  even  bears  the  name.  When  Mr.  Le  Fevre,  re- 
cently of  New  York,  visited  England,  he  had  but  one 
opportunity  of  preaching  during  his  abode  in  London, 
and  that  was  to  a  Unitarian  congregation  in  Newing- 
ton,  near  London,  which  at  the  time  "  did  not  exceed 
thirty  people." 

In  an  article  on  "  Universalism  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,"  by  Mr.  Sawyer,  in  '  the  Expositor  and  Uni- 
versalist  Review,'  for  May,  1840,  the  writer  says,  (p. 
190,)  "  We  know  of  but  one  flourishing  society  in  Eng- 
land at  the  present  time,  that  of  Liverpool,  under  the 
charge  of  the  Rev.  David  Thorn."  After  reviewing 
the  Theological  System  of  Mr.  Thorn,  Mr.  Sawyer  says, 
(p.  210,)  that  Mr.  Thorn  "  declares  our  views  of  the  na- 
ture of  Jesus  Christ  and  of  the  atonement  to  be  awfully 
erroneous,  and  what  is  more,  excessively  superficial" 
And  then  he  adds,  of  Mr.  T.'s  system,  "  it  seems  to  us, 
in  many  of  its  prominent  features,  essentially  erroneous.1" 


PREVAILING  CREED  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  31 

Mrs.  Sherwood.  Britain  and  In-land 

Yet,  though  so  essentially  different  from  Universalists 
in  this  country,  their  number  is  very  small.  Mr.  Thorn, 
in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Sawyer,  bearing  date  March  30, 
1836,  writes,  "  You  cannot  conceive  the  need  which  we 
(Universalists)  have  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  of  be- 
ing cheered  on.  A  few  stragglers,  amounting  in  all  to 
some  hundreds,  is  the  sum  of  our  numbers" 

I  have  been  credibly  informed,  that,  when  it  was  an- 
nounced in  this  country,  not  long  since,  that  Mrs.  Sher- 
wood, of  England,  had  become  a  Universalist,  a  box, 
containing  a  copy  of  each  of  their  principal  publica- 
tions, was  sent  to  this  lady  by  some  American  Univer- 
salists ;  which,  however,  much  to  their  mortification, 
was  returned  unopened. 

"  In  Scotland/'  we  are  told,  (<  Exp.  May,  1840,'  p. 
190,)  "  Universalists,  considered  as  a  distinct  sect,  are 
scarcely  more  prosperous  than  in  England."  "  They 
(p.  211,)  have  generally  adhered  to  that  form  of  Uni- 
versalism,  which,  with  some  more  or  less  important  mo- 
difications, prevailed  in  England  and  America  forty 
or  fifty  years  ago.  It  embraces  the  doctrine  of  the  su- 
preme divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  popular  doctrine  of 
the  atonement,  and  others  of  a  kindred  nature."  "  In 
Ireland,  (p.  190,)  Mr.  Whittemore  mentions  a  society 
of  Universalists  at  Colerain.  Of  its  present  state  we 
are  not  informed  ;  nor,  indeed,  could  we  affirm  its  ex- 
istence." 

Such  is  the  state  of  Universalism  in  the  British  Isles. 
We  look  in  vain  among  them  all  for  the  creed  that  is 
so  popular  among  the  sect  in  this  country.  It  has  no 


32  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


Great  Britain. 


existence  there.  Hence  the  writer  just  quoted,  re- 
marks, (p.  211,)  "  As  Universalists  now  exist  and  be- 
lieve in  Great  Britain,  we  do  not  flatter  ourselves  with 
the  expectation  of  much  progress.  If  we  turn  to  the 
Unitarians,  we  shall  find  little  more  reason  to  be  en- 
couraged." 

The  reader  will  now  perceive  the  propriety  of  the 
phrase  "  American  Universalism."  The  impropriety 
of  calling  it  Christianity,  will,  if  not  already  seen,  be 
made  apparent  as  we  proceed. 


CHAPTER    III. 

FINAL    HAPPINESS   OF    ALL    MANKIND. 

Summary  of  the  creed — Denial  of  every  thing  heretofore 
thought  sacred — Pretence  of  being  the  plain  doctrine  of  the 
Bible — Final  holiness  and  happiness  universal — Does  not 
teach  that  men  will  be  happy  at  death — Novel  mode  of  inter- 
pretation— Bible  a  Jewish  affair — Credulity. 

They  "  the  truth  of  God 
Turn'd  to  a  lie,  deceiving  and  deceiv'd; 
Each,  with  th'  accursed  sorcery  of  sin, 
To  his  own  wish  and  vile  propensity 
Transforming  still  the  meaning  of  the  text." — POLLOK. 

IT  needs  but  a  very  moderate  share  of  discernment, 
in  order  to  discover  the  almost  total  dissimilarity  be- 
tween this  novel  system  and  those  which  have  preced- 
ed it.  Well  may  its  advocates  affirm,  that  between 
them  and  other  denominations,  "  there  is  a  difference 
high  as  heaven,  wide  as  the  earth."  This  strange  creed 
maintains,  that  neither  temporal  nor  eternal  death  are 
consequences  of  sin ;  that  mankind  are  strangers  alike  to 
native  and  total  depravity ;  that  the  mind  is  not  the 
source  of  sin,  and  that  all  sin  will  cease  with  the  de- 
struction of  the  flesh.  It  denies,  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  properly  an  atonement  or  satisfaction  for  the  sins, 
past  and  to  come,  of  the  children  of  men,  or  that  there 
was  any  peculiarity  in  the  nature  of  his  sufferings.  It 
denies  the  supreme  divinity  of  our  Lord,  the  distinct 


34  UNIVERSALISM  AS   IT   IS. 

Summary  of  the  Creed.  Obviously  taught  in  the  Bible. 

personality  and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity.  It  teaches  that  the  salvation  of 
the  gospel,  in  no  case,  delivers  men  from  deserved  pun- 
ishment, that  God  regards  both  saints  and  sinners  with 
the  same  feelings,  that  his  favor  can  never  be  lost,  that 
the  actions  of  this  life  do  not  affect  in  the  least  degree 
our  eternal  welfare,  and  that  man  needs  no  radical 
change  of  nature.  It  denies  that,  at  the  resurrection, 
any  will  be  raised  to  '  shame  and  everlasting  contempt,' 
or  that  there  will  be  a  general  judgment  immediately 
following  that  event. 

Thus  every  doctrine,  heretofore  regarded  as  sacred, 
and  undoubtedly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  with  the  sin- 
gle exception  of  the  Unity  of  God,  (a  doctrine  not  pecu- 
liar to  Christianity,)  is  unblushingly ^denied  and  ridicul- 
ed by  these  New  Lights  of  the  world.  They  are  the 
favored  of  heaven !  Hitherto  darkness  has  covered  the 
earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  people !  But  the  Lord 
has  arisen  upon  them,  and  his  glory  has  been  seen  upon 
them !  A  most  palpable  blindness  has  afflicted  alike 
the  learned  and  unlearned,  the  wise  and  the  ignorant ! 
The  Bible,  that  book  given  of  God  to  be  the  light  of  the 
world,  has,  till  now,  been  shrouded  in  darkness !  The 
book  of  revelation  has  proved  to  all  the  world  beside, 
and  to  every  preceding  generation,  a  sealed  book! 

But,  what  is  most  of  all  strange,  Universalists  main- 
tain, that  this  system,  which  they  pretend  to  have  gath- 
ered from  the  Bible,  lies  on  the  very  surface, ;  is  the 
most  obvious,  most  directly  taught ;  and  that  it  argues 
wilful  blindness,  and  fear  of  the  truth,  if  any  expounder 


FINAL  HAPPINESS  OF  ALL  MANKIND.  35 

Said  to  be  cleat ly  revealed.  •  Contempt  of  Orthodoxy. 

of  Scripture  does  not  perceive  it.  Mr.  Grosh,  of  Utica, 
in  the  "  Universalist  Companion  for  1841,"  says,  "  We 
believe  that  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments the  foregoing  sentiments  are  clearly  revealed." 
Speaking  of  "  our  common  English  version  of  the  Bi- 
ble," the  younger  Ballou  says,  (<  Exp.'  I.  273,)  "  We 
hazard  nothing  in  repeating  a  statement  in  which  all 
good  judges  appear  agreed,  that  on  the  whole  it  exhi- 
bits intelligibly,  at  least,  if  not  with  perfect  clearness, 
the  general  tenor  and  doctrines  of  the  original  text.  So 
far  as  it  respects  the  means  of  understanding  these,  the 
English  reader  need  not  much  regret- his  ignorance  of 
the  dead  languages." 

They  can  scarcely  have  any  patience  with  those, 
who  teach  the  old-fashioned  doctrines  of  the  Trinity, 
atonement,  and  endless  punishment.  In  speaking  of 
the  latter  particularly,  they  can  scarcely  find  words 
strong  enough  to  express  their  contempt  and  abhor- 
rence. It  is  a  "  wretched  hypothesis ;"  "  a  doctrine, 
which,  if  true,  would  disgrace  the  benevolent  author  of 
our  being,"  "  ascribes  a  character  to  God  which  no  lan- 
guage can  express — which,  indeed,  for  innate  and  un- 
provoked cruelty,  infinitely  surpasses  the  loftiest  pow- 
ers of  imagination,"  and  "  represents  God  as  sustaining 
a  character  compared  with  which,  that  of  Nero  is  ex- 
cellence ;"  "  it  is  an  insult  alike  to  reason,  and  every 
sentiment  of  purity  and  reverence ;  it  is  contempt  thrown 
upon  the  word  of  God  and  the  character  of  its  author." 
It  is  therefore  a  "  horrible  dogma,"  "  absurd  and  blasphe- 
mous," "bolstered  up  by  horrid  assumptions."  (See 


36  UN1VERSALTSM  AS  IT  IS. 

They  only  have  eyes.  Awful  depravity  of  good  men. 

'  Letters  to  Brownlee,'  and  '  Letters  to  Remington,' 
by  T.  J.  Sawyer.)  "  When,"  says  this  mild  writer, 
"  will  the  Christian  world  have  ceased  to  indulge  in 
these  wretched  peurilities,  and  be  willing  to  interpret 
the  word  of  divine  truth  in  a  manner  worthy  of  itself?" 

Thus  these  very  modest  and  unassuming  reformers 
maintain  that  the  Christian  world  have  heretofore  in- 
dulged themselves  in  wretched  puerilities,  and  that  all 
their  show  of  learning  has  amounted  to  nothing  more 
than  mere  boys'  play.  Nay,  it  is  gravely  asserted  that 
they  (i.  e.  all  who  have  not  adopted  this  new  creed,) 
have  not  been  "  willing  to  interpret  the  word  of  divine 
truth  in  a  manner  worthy  of  itself."  Having  eyes  they 
would  not  see !  What  a  sweeping  charge !  And  this 
is  attributable  to  their  depravity :  "  Among  the  most 
astonishing  facts  of  the  moral  world,  stands  this  general 
credulity  in  all  that  is  dishonorable  and  blasphemous  re- 
lative to  the  universal  Creator.  It  furnishes  one  of  the 
strongest  evidences  of  man's  awful  depravity !"  ('  Saw- 
yer to  Remington,'  p.  115.) 

What  awfully-depraved  men,  according  to  Mr.  Saw- 
yer, were  Luther,  Calvin,  Baxter,  Hammond,  Patrick, 
Lowth,  Whitby,  Henry,  Gill,  Doddridge,  Wesley,  Scott, 
Bloomfield,  and  Clarke  !  How  strange  that  such  wick- 
ed men  should  have  been  selected  to  give  tone  to  nearly  all 
the  piety  in  the  world  by  their  "  wretched  puerilities  !" 
Stranger  still  that  men  of  such  profound  and  extensive 
learning,  such  matured  wisdom,  and  such  penetrating 
intellects,  should  not,  with  all  their  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  the  original  language  of  Scripture,  have  dis- 


FINAL  HAPPINESS  OF  ALL  MANKIND.  37 

Superiority  to  the  Apostle*.  Leading  doctrine*. 

covered  what  the  merest  tyro  in  the  Universalist  ministry 
can  now  see,  without  Greek  or  Hebrew  optics,  as  plain 
as  day  !  And  stranger  still,  that  the  Savior,  the  pro- 
phets, and  the  apostles  should  have  chosen  to  express 
themselves  in  such  phraseology,  that,  whether  read  in 
the  original,  or  in  the  numerous  versions  into  which  the 
Scriptures  have  been  rendered,  it  has  never  been  known 
until  recently  what  was  their  true  meaning  !  What  a 
pity  that  Ballou,  Balfour,  and  Kneeland  had  not  written 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  Peter,  and  John !  Then  we  could 
never  have  doubted  whether  there  were  future  and 
endless  punishment,  or  not. 

But,  lest  the  reader  should  imagine  that  I  have 
charged  these  modern  interpreters  of  Scripture  falsely, 
I  proceed,  without  further  preface,  to  introduce  the 
requisite  testimony.  My  object  is  not  to  enlighten  the 
informed  Universalist,  in  regard  to  the  items  of  his 
creed,  for  none  such  will  deny  the  charge.  But  I  de- 
sign to  show  the  unthinking  many,  who  compose  the 
mass  of  the  half-million  claimed  to  belong  to  the  de- 
nomination, what  they  must  believe,  if  they  become 
"  positive  Universalists ;"  and  to  undeceive  others  in 
regard  to  the  assumption  of  the  Christian  name,  by 
those  who  "  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them." 

The  great  and  leading  doctrine  of  Universalism,  and 
that  for  which  all  its  other  doctrines  were  made,  is  that 


38  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Resurrection-power.  Distinctive  doctrine. 

I.    ALL    MANKIND    WILL   EVENTUALLY   BECOME    HOLY  AND 
HAPPY. 

In  this  they  are  all  agreed.  "  The  sentiment,"  says 
the  author  of  the  '  Plain  Guide,'  (p.  15,)  "  by  which 
Universalists  are  distinguished  is  this  :  that  at  last 
every  individual  of  the  human  race  shall  become  holy 
and  happy.  This  does  not  comprise  the  whole  of  their 
faith,  but  merely  that  feature  of  it,  which  is  peculiar 
to  them,  and  by  which  they  are  distinguished  from  the 
rest  of  the  world."  And  such  is  the  beginning  and 
end  of  all  their  writings. 

The  text  book  of  Modern  Universalism  is  '  a  Trea- 
tise on  Atonement'  by  Hosea  Ballou,  in  the  preface  to 
which  he  remarks,  (p.  6,)  "  Perhaps  the  reader  will 
say,  he  has  read  a  number  of  authors  on  the  doctrine  of 
Universalism,  and  finds  considerable  difference  in  their 
systems.  That  I  acknowledge  is  true  5  but  all  agree 
in  the  main  point,  viz.  that  universal  holiness  and  hap- 
piness is  the  great  object  of  the  gospel  plan." 

At  what  time  this  anticipated  result  will  take  place 
does  not  fully  appear.  All,  however,  agree  in  the  be- 
lief that  it  will  not  be  delayed  beyond  the  resurrection. 
I  say,  all ;  for  I  cannot  learn  that  any  of  them  believe 
that  the  misery  of  the  wicked  will  continue  beyond  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead. 

"  In  the  resurrection,"  says  A.  C.  Thomas,  ((  Theo. 
Discus.'  p.  281,)  "  universal  humanity  shall  walk 
forth  in  the  beauty  of  holiness,  redeemed  and  regene- 
rated by  the  quickening  Spirit  of  the  living  God." 
Mr.  Ballou  says,  (<  Expositor'  I.  78,)  "  that  the  resurrec- 


FINAL  HAPPINESS  OE   ALL  MANKIND.  39 

None  happy  at  death.  Resurrection  indeterminate. 

tion-power,  which  brought  again  from  the  dead  the 
Lord  Jesus  Ctfrist,  will  finally,  in  him,  make  the  whole 
human  family  gloriously  immortal  and  incorruptible." 
But,  how  long  a  time  will  elapse  before  the  resurrec- 
tion, they  pretend  not  to  say.  "  Whether  the  resur- 
rection instantly  succeeds  the  death  of  the  body,  or 
whether  it  is  a  progressive  work  in  the  hands  of  God, 
performed  upon  different  individuals  at  different  times, 
as  he  shall  please  to  raise  them,  or  whether  it  is  to  take 
place  with  all  simultaneously  at  some  future  time,  Uni- 
versalism,  as  such,  does  not  decide."  ('Expositor,' 
III.  31.) 

That  all,  or  any  of  mankind  will  be  happy  at  death , 
will  then  enter  into  bliss,  forms  no  part  of  this  creed. 
"  We  do  not  presume,"  they  say,  "  to  know  that  men 
by  shortening  their  days  upon  the  earth,  will  hasten 

their  entrance  into  heaven As  it  respects  the 

hastening  of  an  introduction  into  another  life  by  the 
shortening  of  the  present,  (i.  e.  suicide,)  we  would  state 
distinctly,  that  no  particular  speculation  upon  this 
point  is  any  essential  part  of  the  Universalist  system." 
(<  Exp.'  ffl.  22,  31.) 

It  is  true,  that  we  often  see,  in  their  ephemeral  pub- 
lications, much  that  would  imply,  that  the  departed  had 
gone  to  glory.  But  the  Universalist  preacher  can  hold 
out  no  such  hope  to  his  dying  disciple,  and  be  honest. 
He  cannot  assure  the  trembling  sinner  that  he  will  en- 
ter into  the  joy  of  his  Lord,  until,  it  may  be,  thousands 
of  years  have  rolled  around,  and  ushered  in  the  resur- 
rection-morn. No  wonder  that,  with  such  instructions, 


«*_  **"5   PW*# 


40  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Old  Testament.  Silent  as  to  a  future  state. 

the  wretched  man  clings  to  life,  and  shrinks  back  from 
the  dreary  prospect  of  long-continued  darkness  and 
death. 

Their  views  on  this  point  will  be  given  in  another 
place.  But  let  me  add  a  word  of  caution  to  those  who 
have  blindly  adopted  this  creed,  that  they  no  longer 
flatter  themselves  that  they  will  be  happy  at  death.  I 
know  of  no  Universalist  writer,  or  preacher,  that  main- 
tains such  a  doctrine.  Look  before  you  take  the  final 
leap. 

The  reader,  however,  who  has  not  made  himself 
familiar  with  this  crafty  system,  will,  doubtless,  be 
ready  to  ask,  how  do  these  preachers  dispose  of  those 
numerous  passages  of  Scripture  which  affirm  the  ever- 
lasting punishment  of  those  who  die  in  their  sins  ?'  In 
the  first  place,  then,  they  maintain,  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment  says  but  little,  perhaps  nothing,  of  the  future  im- 
mortal state.  The  younger  Ballou  says,  ('  Exp.'  I.  182,) 
"  The  future  state  of  existence  was  not  clearly  revealed 
till  the  time  of  our  Savior."  "  The  views  which  the  Old 
Testament  had  afforded  of  this  most  interesting  sub- 
ject were  faint  and  indistinct,  like  a  prospect  amid  the 
obscurity  of  night."  -Mr.  Sawyer,  in  his  sermon  on  the 
c  Penalty  of  Sin,'  (p.  15,)  quotes  with  implied  appro- 
bation this  remark  of  Dr.  Jahn  ;  "  We  have  not  author- 
ity decidedly  to  say  that  any  other  motives  were  held 
out  to  the  ancient  Hebrews  to  pursue  the  good,  and  to 
avoid  the  evil,  than  those  which  were  derived  from  the 
rewards  and  punishments  of  this  life."  And  again, 
(p.  22,)  "  Indeed,  as  I  have  before  suggested,  the  Old 


FINAL  HAPPINESS  OF  ALL  MANKIND.  41 

i  ignorance.  A  Dilemm:i. 

Testament  is  confessed  by  many  eminent  divines,  to 
contain  no  hint  of  future  rewards  and  punishments." 

"  Where  in  the  Old  Testament,"  asks  the  same  wri- 
ter, ('  Universalist  Union,'  IV.  213,)  "  are  to  be  found 
any  thing  but  mere  temporal  sanctions."  And  after 
quoting  several  very  learned  and  orthodox  divines  to 
the  same  effect,  he  adds, — "  Now  if  these  several  wri- 
ters are  correct"  (and  of  course  he  thinks  them  so,) 
"  mere  temporal  sanctions  were  the  only  sanctions  of 
the  Old  Testament  known  to  God's  favored  people,  the 
Hut  why  not  quote  Heb.  xi.  as  in  point  ? 

Such  is  the  opinion  of  their  leader  also.  "  It  is 
worthy  of  special  regard,"  says  the  elder  Ballou, 
('  Lecture-Sermons,'  p.  274,)  "  that  the  divine  pro- 
mises and  threatenings  recorded  by  Moses  and  the  pro- 
phets, with  which  God  was  pleased  to  signify  his  ap- 
probation of  righteousness,  and  his  disapprobation  of 
sin,  relate  to  blessings  aiid  punishments  which  have  been 
enjoyed  and  nujfered  by  the  house  of  Israel  in  the  earth." 
Again,  lie  remarks,  (p.  275,) — "  We  have  no  more 
authority  for  applying  either  the  promises  for  obedi- 
ence, or  the  threatenings  for  disobedience,  to  a  future 
state,  than  we  have  for  believing  that  the  Jews,  for 
their  obedience  in  this  world,  will  be  blessed  in  the  future 
state  in  the  quiet  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan ;  and 
for  their  disobedience  will  be  visited  with  sickness,  and 
be  carried  away  into  captivity  by  their  enemies." 

Now  it  happens,  very  unfortunately  for  these  inno- 
vators, that  some  of  their  most  important  proof-texts 
are  derived  from  the  Old  Testament;  e.  g.  Gen.  xxii. 
4* 


42  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Apocalypse. 

18.  "  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  To  be  consistent,  they  must  admit,  that 
here  is  no  hint  of  future  rewards  except  in  this  world. 
The  same  must  be  admitted  of  Psalm  xxii.  27,  and  Isa. 
xxv.  8.  Before  appealing  to  these  again,  I  would  ad- 
vise them,  first  to  settle  the  question,  whether  or  not 
the  Old  Testament  sheds  any  light  on  the  immortal 
state  ;  and  if  so,  how  much  1 

But  the  New  Testament  is  not  liable  to  this  objec- 
tion. There,  confessedly,  "  life  and  immortality"  are 
brought  to  light.  Yet  who  does  not  know  "  that  most 
of  it  was  written  under  the  very  shadow  of  an  impend- 
ing judgment  which  was  about  to  sweep  the  holy  city, 
the  Mosaic  system  of  worship,  and  a  large  part  of  the 
Jewish  nation  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  to  scatter 
the  broken  remnant  in  everlasting  dispersion  ?"  "A  re- 
collection of  these  facts  will  prepare  the  reader  to  trace 
the  reference  of  many  passages  in  the  gospels  and  epis- 
tles, which  would  otherwise  be  dark  and  perplexing." 
So  says  the  younger  Ballou,  ('  Exp.'  I.  280,)  and  who 
cannot  see,  in  the  light  of  this  new  luminary,  that  every 
threatening  of  the  New  Testament,  that  seems  to  look 
to  a  future  world,  must  have  had  its  fulfilment,  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  ?  These  new  interpreters  af- 
firm it,  and  it  would  be  very  impolite  to  call  in  question 
their  infallibility. 

As  to  the  Apocalypse,  or  Revelation  of  John,  of 
which  orthodox  writers  make  such  frequent  mention, 
and  which  most  of  them  say  was  written  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  inasmuch  as  there  are  &few  ex- 


FINAL   HAPPINESS    OF   ALL   MANKIND.  43 

ApocaJypec.  Credulity. 

positors  who  give  it  a  date  prior  to  that  event ;  there- 
fore, they  say,  we  do  not  know  certainly  that  it  refers 
to  any  other  destruction,  than  what  takes  place  in  this 
world.  Thus  Mr.  Sawyer  remarks,  ('  Penalty  of  Sin,'  p. 
16,)  "  It  has  been,  and  may  well  be,  doubted,  whether 
any  part  of  the  Apocalypse  relates  to  the  future  and 
eternal  world."  Besides,  it  is  a  very  obscure  book,  at 
least  in  some  respects.  The  same  writer  says,  ('  Letters 
to  Remington,'  p.  131,)  "  I  do  not  profess  to  understand 
that  book."  Mr.  Balfour,  in  his  '  Reply  to  Professor 
Stuart,'  remarks,  (p.  205,)  "  If  you  can  say  in  truth, 
that  you  understand  the  book  of  Revelation,  and  can 
explain  it,  you  are  the  first  man  whom  the  world  has 
furnished  since  it  was  written,  of  whom  this  could  be 
said."  And,  because  Dr.  Lardner  included  the  Apoca- 
lypse among  the  books  which  cannot  "  afford  alone  suf- 
ficient proof  of  any  doctrine,"  Mr.  Balfour  casts  it  aside 
as  irrelevant  to  the  controversy.  Therefore,  though 
some  of  its  language  is  very  fearful, "  I  can  see  no  pro- 
priety," says  Mr.  Thomas,  ('  Theo.  Discus.'  pp.  37, 
38,)  "  in  referring  such  language  to  a  future  state.  Nor 
do  I  see  the  propriety  of  urging  so  confessedly  hyperbo- 
lical a  book  as  the  Apocalypse,  in  proof  of  any  impor- 
tant doctrine."  And  Mr.  Le  Fuvre  says,  (*  Gospel  An- 
chor,' II.  62,)  "  The  book  of  Revelation  is  manifestly 
obscure,  and  its  authenticity  and  genuineness  having 
been  disputed  from  the  earliest  ages  of  the  church,  we 
agree  with  the  sentiments  expressed  by  Dr.  Lardner, 
£  that  it  may  be  well  to  read  it  in  churches  for  edifica- 
tion, but  it  ought  not  to  be  brought  forward  as  sufficient 


44  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Bible  antiquated.  Labor-saving  course. 

authority  to  establish  any  doctrine?  '  The  easiest  way 
to  dispose  of  some  of  its  fearful  language  is  undoubtedly 
to  deny  its  authority.  It  may  be  read  for  amusement, 
or  entertainment,  but  not  for  doctrinal  instruction ! 

If  now  a  man  can  be  so  credulous  as  to  believe  that 
the  Jews  were  more  ignorant  than  the  Heathen,  and 
that  their  Bible  contained  not  even  a  "  hint  of  future 
rewards  and  punishments,"  though  coming  from  God 
himself ;  that  neither  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses, 
Samuel,  David,  nor  any  of  the  prophets  expected  to 
live  again  after  death;  if  he  can  also  believe  that 
"  most"  of  the  New  Testament  relates  simply  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  that  the  Apocalypse  is 
no  authority  at  all,  he  is  in  a  fair  way  to  become  a 
Universalist.  But,  in  the  language  of  another  I  would 
add,  if  he  succeeds  "  in  digesting  the  monstrous  absur- 
dity, let  him  be  honest  enough  to  call  things  by  right 
names,  and  label  the  New  Testament  "  JERUSALEM'S 
DESTRUCTION  FORETOLD  ;"  and  then  lay  it  aside  as  a 
book  which  interests  him  no  more  than  any  other  trea- 
tise upon  times  and  events  so  remote, — as  fit  only  for 
antiquarian  purposes  ; — lay  it  aside  on  the  ground  that 
what  was  written  mainly,  and  so  exclusively,  for  the 
men  that  lived  2000  years  ago,  claims  little  authority 
and  influence  over  him." 

The  reader  surely  must  admire  the  wonderful  and 
labor-saving  simplicity  of  this  course.  All  that  is 
needful  is,  in  the  first  place  to  throw  away  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Apocalypse,  and  then,  in  the  second 
place,  to  refer  every  fearful  threatening  in  the  remain- 


FINAL  HAPPINESS  OF  ALL  MANKIND.  45 

A  Jewish  affair. 

der  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  not  a  passage  remains  that  even  hints  at  a 
retribution  in  the  future  immortal  state. 

"  What  doth  the  man  deserve  of  human  kind, 
Whose  happy  skill  and  industry  combin'd  " 

have  thus  proved  the  Bible  to  be,  at  the  best,  a  mere 
Jewish  affair,  of  but  little  use  to  the  world,  since  the 
end  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  save  as  a  history  of 
interesting  events  ?  What,  but 

"  The  praises  of  the  libertine  confess'd, 

The  worst  of  men,  and  curses  of  the  best !" 


CHAPTER  IV. 

PENALTY    OF     SIN. 

Penalty  of  Sin — Once  universally  supposed  to  be  endless  death 
— This  position  denied — Final  happiness  never  forfeited  by 
Sin — How  regarded  by  Murray,  Chauncy,  and  Huntington 
— Views  of  this  penalty  expressed  by  Modern  Universalists 
— Strange  interpretation  of  l  eternal  life' — 'Eternal  death' 
not  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 

"  The  heart  surrender'd  to  the  ruling  pow'r 
Of  some  ungovern'd  passion  ev'ry  hour, 
Finds  by  degrees  the  truths,  that  once  bore  sway, 
And  all  their  deep  impressions,  wear  away  ; 
As  coin  grows  smooth,  in  traffic  current  pass'd, 
Till  Caesar's  image  is  effac'd  at  last !" — COWPER. 

IT  would  be  impossible  to  persuade  all  men,  at  once, 
to  adopt  the  novel  mode  of  interpretation,  by  which  the 
Bible  is  made  to  keep  a  profound  silence  respecting 
punishment  after  death.  "After  all  that  has  been  said 
('  Exp.'  I.  283,)  it  will  require  probably  about  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century  to  induce  people  generally"  to  believe 
that  the  passage  in  Mat.  xxv.  31 — 46,  and  kindred  de- 
clarations, refer  only  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ; 
that  it  was  mainly  to  save  the  Jews,  tens  of  thousands 
of  whom  would  then  be  in  their  graves,  from  premature 
and  violent  death,  that  the  Savior  and  his  apostles 
"  ceased  not  to  warn  every  one  night  and  day  with 
tears."  If  this  proceeding  had  been  confined  to  Jeru- 
salem and  Jews,  these  views  would  be  more  readily 
credited.  But,  when  in  the  cities  of  Syria,  Asia  Minor, 


PENALTY   OF   SIN.  47 


Limited  Penalty.  Starting  point. 

and  Greece,  the  Apostles  are  seen  pursuing  the  same 
course  "  both  to  the  Jews  and  also  to  the  Greeks,"  or 
Gentiles,  the  mind  needs  a  long  schooling  before  it  can 
give  credence  to  such  strange  assumptions. 

In  order  to  meet  this  emergency,  it  was  discovered, 
not  long  since,  that  the  world  had  made  a  gross  mis- 
take about  the  penalty  of  sin!  Mankind,  it  is  true,  have 
transgressed  the  law  of  God,  and  incurred  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  but  the  law  never  meant  to  inflict  endless 
punishment  on  the  transgressor !  Sin  is  not  so  great  an 
evil  as  men  thought  that  it  was !  It  is  not  possible  for  men 
to  sin  so  greatly  as  to  deserve  endless  death !  Therefore 
it  cannot  be  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  the  doctrine  is 
only  the  product  of  a  horrid  fancy !  If  so,  the  question 
is  settled  at  once.  "  What  need  we  any  farther  wit- 
ness ?"  The  building  must  now  rise,  for  a  limited  pen- 
alty has  "  become  the  head-stone  of  the  corner." 

Here  is  the  starting  point.  The  attempt  is  made  un- 
blushingly  to  unsettle  the  foundations  of  ages.  Every 
scheme  of  doctrine,  heretofore  received  as  taught  in  the 
Bible,  both  conceded,  and  was  based,  on  the  supposi- 
tion or  belief,  that  endless  punishment  was  the  proper 
penalty  of  transgression.  And,  however  the  patrons 
of  these  schemes  may  have  differed  in  the  extent  of  the 
application  of  the  atonement,  in  this  they  were  all 
agreed.  They,  who  first  embraced  the  doctrine  of  Uni- 
versal Salvation,  based  their  hope  of  escaping  endless 
death,  on  the  ground  that  Christ  had  redeemed  all  men 
from  the  curse  of  the  law.  But  it  was  replied  to  such, 
that  if  Christ  had  redeemed  them  from  unending  pun- 


48  PENALTY   OF    SIN. 


Eternal  life  never  lost.  Murray  and  Cliauncy. 

ishment,  then  they  would  have  suffered  such  a  punish- 
ment, had  he  not  have  redeemed  them  ;  and  that  such 
suffering  would  consequently  have  been  just.  Thus  the 
justice  of  endless  punishment  would  be,  at  once,  conced- 
ed. This  ground,  therefore,  proving  untenable,  it  was 
abandoned,  and  a  bolder  position  taken. 
Modern  Universalism  teaches  that 

II.  FINAL  HAPPINESS  NEVER  HAS  BEEN,  AND  NEVER  CAN  BE, 

FORFEITED  BY  SlN. 

Mr.  Murray  held  that  our  loss  in  the  first  Adam,  and 
gain  in  the  second  were  the  same ;  that  what  we  have 
procured  through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  union 
with  Him,  we  forfeited  by  the  sin  of  our  first  parents ; 
that,  therefore,  final  happiness  was  forfeited  by  sin. 

Dr.  Chauncy,  too,  though  his  scheme  differed  much 
from  Murray's,  agreed  with  him  in  this  particular.  He 
seems  to  have  wavered  much  in  regard  to  the  true  na- 
ture of  the  penalty  threatened  by  the  divine  law.  He 
labors  hard,  indeed,  in  his  book  on  '  the  Salvation  of 
all  men,'  to  establish  the  point  that  the  law  did  not 
threaten  eternal  death,  or  "  everlasting  destruction." 
But  that  he  did  not  feel  secure  on  this  ground  appears 
from  what  he  says,  (p.  282,)  of  annihilation : — "  If  the 
foregoing  scheme  should  be  found  to  have  no  truth  in 
it,  and  the  wicked  are  sent  to  hell,  as  so  many  incura- 
bles, the  second  death  ought  to  be  considered,  as  that 
which  will  put  an  end  to  their  existence,  both  in  soul 
and  body,  so  as  that  they  shall  be  no  more  in  the  crea- 
tion of  God."  By  falling  back  on  this  scheme,  after 


PENALTY   OF   SIN.  49 


Hunliiigton.  Ballou's  discovery. 

admitting,  as  he  does,  that  the  reward  of  obedience  was 
to  be  endless  happiness,  he  admits  that  such  happiness 
was  forfeited  by  sin. 

Dr.  Huntington  seems  not  to  have  questioned  the 
point  at  all.  He  "  maintained  that  endless  punishment 
was  a  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures/'  "  and  in  reference  to 
the  question, '  does  the  Bible  plainly  say  that  sinners  of 
mankind  shall  be  damned  to  interminable  punishment  V 
he  answered,  *  it  certainly  does,  as  plainly  as  language 
can  express,  or  any  man,  or  even  God  himself  can  speak.' 
Nor  did  he  deny  that  endless  misery  was  consistent  with 
tlivine  justice.  On  this  subject  he  was  perfectly  plain. 
*  The  endless  duration  of  punishment,'  -said  he, f  appears 
obviously  just,  no  more  than  we  deserve,  and  not  in  the 
least  cruel  for  God  to  inflict.  To^  argue,  as  some  do, 
that  it  is  not  just  for  God  to  punish  eternally,  for  tran- 
sient sins  in  this  world,  is  the  perfection  of  absurdity, 
and  arises  from  a  total  ignorance  of  God,  and  ourselves, 
in  the  true  character  and  relation  of  each."  ('  Mod.  His.' 
pp.  385,  6.)  He  doubted  not  that,  by  sin,  future  end- 
less happiness  had  been  justly  forfeited. 

Not  so,  however,  with  the  degenerate,  or,  as  they 
would  call  themselves,  perhaps, — the  regenerate,  disci- 
ples of  Murray  and  Chauncy.  They  are  "  wiser  than 
their  fathers  were."  Mr.  Ballou  had  the  goodness, 
nearly  forty  years  since,  to  inform  the  Christian  world, 
that  what  they  called  law,  was  "  only  a  creature  of  false 
education."  In  his  *  Treatise  on  Atonement,'  (pp.  127,8,) 
he  says,  "  Before  you  found  peace,  you  thought  you 
could  see  the  justice  of  God  in  your  eternal  exclusion 


50  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Prayer  ridiculed.  Presumption. 

from  heaven  and  happiness.  Now  we  ask,  can  you 
find,  that  God  ever  gave  a  law  to  man,  which  required 
endless  misery,  in  case  of  disobedience  ?  Sure  we  are, 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  none,  neither  do  the  dictates  of 
good  reason  admit  of  its  existence."  "A  false  education 
has  riveted  the  error  in  the  minds  of  thousands,  that 
God's  law  required  endless  misery  to  be  inflicted  on  the 
sinner.  How  often  do  professed  Christians  address  the 
Almighty,  and  say — '  Hadst  thou  been  just  to  have 
marked  iniquity,  we  should  long  since  have  been  in 
the  grave  with  the  dead,  and  in  hell  with  the  damned.5 
This  address  amounts  to  nothing  more  nor  less,  than  a 
complimental  accusation  against  God  of  injustice !  It 
surprises  us  to  think  how  professed  Christians  will  con- 
tend for  the  honor  and  glory  of  God,  in  a  way  that 
renders  his  character  infinitely  inglorious  and  dishon- 
orable.55 

That  Mr.  Ballou,  without  the  aid  of  a  liberal  educa- 
tion, should  understand,  at  the  age  of  somewhat  more 
than  thirty  years,  so  surely  both  what  "  the  Scriptures 
speak,55  and  "  the  dictates  of  good  reason  admit,55  as 
to  call  in  question  the  wisdom  and  discrimination  of 
nearly  all  the  wise,  and  good,  and  great,  who  preceded 
him,  may  appear  very  plausible  to  himself,  if  not  to 
others.  It  seems  not  have  occurred  to  him,  that,  in 
charging  the  people  of  God,  with  bringing,  in  their 
prayers,  "  a  complimental  accusation  against  God,  in- 
finitely inglorious  and  dishonorable,55  he  might  be  only 
exposing  his  own  ignorance  of  the  true  nature  of  sin; 
or,  that  their  feelings  might  be  owing  to  their  superior 


PENALTY  OF  SIN.  51 


Chriatian  Experience.  I )mn«;  Psychology. 

light,  and  greater  love  of  a  holy  God.  It  is  well  known, 
that  as  Christians  increase  in  holiness,  they  acquire  a 
vastly  greater  abhorrence  of  the  evil  of  sin,  leading 
them  often  to  express  themselves  in  the  language,  at 
which  Mr.  B.  so  contemptuously  sneers.  The  more 
that  one  sees  of  the  holiness  of  God,  the  more  he  will 
be  induced,  with  Job,  to  abhor  himself,  and  repent  in 
dust  and  ashes. 

Since  the  publication  of  the  *  Treatise  on  Atone- 
ment,' every  Universalist  preacher,  with  here  and  there 
an  exception,  can  see  with  perfect  clearness,  that  "  there 
is  not  the  slightest  intimation  given  in  the  Scriptures, 
that  this  death  was  endless  death."  So  says  Mr.  Whit- 
temore  in  his  '  Plain  Guide,'  p.  56.  But  has  he  at- 
tained to  a  perfect  acquaintance  with  every  text  of 
Scripture,  not  forgetting  what  Mr.  Thomas  calls  that 
"  hyperbolical"  book,  the  Apocalypse  ?  If  not,  how  can 
he  know  that  there  is  no  such  intimation?  Has  it 
never  entered  into  his  mind,  that  possibly  his  sight  may 
be  imperfect,  so  that  what  he  beholds  on  the  page  of 
inspiration,  is  sometimes  warped  by  reason  of  a  very 
common  disease,  called  prejudice  ? 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  these  men  manifest,  not 
only  the  most  intimate  acquaintance  with  every  part  of 
the  Bible,  but  also  with  the  psyc/iology,  or  spiritual  pro- 
perties of  the  Most  High  God,  so  as  to  be  able  to  deter- 
mine infallibly  what  God  can,  and  cannot  do,  what 
course  it  would  be  proper,  or  improper,  for  him  to  pur- 
sue in  the  treatment  of  offenders.  Thus  Mr.  William- 
son, in  his  *  Exposition  and  Defence  of  Universalism,' 


52  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Modest  assertions !  A  stripling's  blustering. 

(pp.  15,  16,)  puts  the  matter  to  rest :  "  The  dogma  of 
endless  wo  we  reject,  as  unmerciful,  unjust,  and  cruel ; 
a  penalty  which  a  just  God  never  did,  and  never  can, 
annex  to  his  law."  "  I  am  not  speaking  at  random,  but  / 
know  whereof  I  affirm,  (how  modest !)  when  I  say  that 
no  living  man  can  take  up  the  Bible,  and  find  a  place 
where  God  gave  man  a  law,  and  annexed  to  it  the  pen- 
alty of  endless  misery.  Hence,  I  say,  that  man  needed 
not  to  be  saved  from  such  an  evil,  for  the  best  of  all 
possible  reasons,  that  in  the  economy  of  God,  he  never 
was  exposed  to  any  such  calamity."  The  reader  cannot 
fail  to  perceive  how  minutely  Mr.  W.  has  acquainted 
himself  with  "  the  economy  of  Gpd,"  or  the  principles 
of  the  divine  government :  and  with  what  entire  confi- 
dence in  his  own  judgment  he  avers  both  what  God 
can,  and  cannot,  do.  Wiser  men  are  more  humble. 
They  go  to  the  Bible,  and  ask — '  What  has  God  de- 
clared, in  this  sacred  Book,  to  be  his  purpose  concern- 
ing the  wicked  who  continue  in  unbelief?'  and  thus 
they  learn  what  God  "  can"  do. 

In  like  manner,  Mr.  Sawyer,  of  New- York,  says, 
(<  Letters  to  Brownlee,'  X.  13,)  "  here  I  meet  the 
popular  but  monstrous  idea,  that  the  penalty  of  the  di- 
vine law  is  endless  misery.  Beware,  sir !  how  you  trifle 
with  the  divine  attributes.^  A  little  more  humility, 
in  addressing  one  so  much  his  senior  and  superior,  would 
have  been  more  becoming  in  "  one  of  so  humble  attain- 
ments as  himself."  To  hear  a  stripling,  just  out  of 
college,  calling  thus  on  a  learned  divine,  who  began  to 
study  divinity  before  he  was  born,  to  beware  how  he 


PENALTY  OF  SIN.  53 


Unlimited  penalty.  Not  found  in  thu  Bible. 

"  trifles  with  the  divine  attributes,"  is  truly  pitiful.  And 
yet  it  is  of  a  piece  wkh  the  whole  course  of  his  com- 
peers, in  their  assaults  on  those  of  another  creed. 

So,  too,  in  his  sermon  on  the  *  Penalty  of  Sin,'  he  tells 
us,  (p.  21,)  that  "  if  God  may  be  allowed  to  be  his  own 
interpreter,  Adam  was   not  threatened  with   endless 
misery  as  the  consequence  of  sin;  at  least  no  intimation 
of  such  a  penalty  is  ever  given."     In  the  *  Universalist 
Union,'    (VI.  No.  4,)  he  uses  similar  language : — "  I 
hazard  nothing  in  saying  that  there  is  not  in  all  the 
books  of  Moses — bringing  down  the  history  of  our  race 
and  of  God's  revelation  to,  and  dealings  with  it,  for 
more  than  twenty-five  hundred  years  after  the  creation 
— there  is  not  in  all  the  books  of  Moses  one  single  pas- 
sage, upon  which  the  doctrine  in  question  can  be  main- 
tained, with  even  a  tolerable  show  of  fairness  and  truth." 
"  But  I  need  not  confine  these  observations  to  the  books 
of  Moses.     They  apply  with  equal  force,  if  I  mistake 
not,  to  the  whole  Old  Testament.     Where  is  the  evi- 
dence they  furnish  that  endless  punishment  is  the  proper 
penalty  of  the  divine  law  ?     I  believe  it  is  not  to  be 
found."  "  What  has  God  revealed  on  this  subject  in  the 
New  Testament  ?  There  are  a  few  passages,  and  but  a 
few,  where  the  word  everlasting  or  eternal  is  applied  to 
punishment ;    and  on  this  circumstance  must  the  ad- 
vocates of  endless  misery  chiefly  rely.     Yet  this  word 
is  confessedly  ambiguous,  and  its  corresponding  word 
in  the  Old  Testament  is  known  to  be  repeatedly  used 
in  relation  to  punishment  which  is  clearly  national  and 
5* 


54  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Redemption  simplified.  Offer  of  Eternal  life. 

temporal.  Why  shall  not  the  word  be  understood  in 
the  same  manner  in  the  New  Testament  ?" 

Other  examples  of  the  kind,  touching  the  matter  in 
hand,  might  be  given,  showing  the  entire  unanimity  of 
the  sect  in  occupying  this  ground.  Its  influence,  in 
modifying  their  views  of  the  whole  system  of  divine 
truth,  will  very  readily  be  perceived.  It  makes  sin  a 
very  trifling  evil,  easily  recompensed,  and  requiring  no 
vicarious  atonement,  or  satisfaction  to  justice  by  a  di- 
vine person.  It  simplifies  vastly  the  great  plan  of  re- 
demption, so  that  we  can  scarcely  suppress  our  wonder, 
that  it  should  have  been  said  of  it,  by  so  judicious  a 
writer  as  Simon  Peter,  "  which  things  the  angels  de- 
sire to  look  into." 

It  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course,  from  this  view  of  the 
penalty  of  sin,  or  the  curse  of  the  law,  that  eternal  life, 
or  endless  happiness,  never  has  been  forfeited  by  sin. 
No  amount  of  guilt  can  deprive  a  human  being  of  this 
inheritance.  "  I  maintain,"  says  Mr.  Balfour,  ('  Letters 
to  Hudson,'  p.  36,)  "  that  no  man  by  his  unbelief  and 
disobedience  can  forfeit  a  future  immortal  life,  and  sub- 
ject himself  either  to  a  limited  or  endless  punishment  in 
a  future  state." 

But  it  will  doubtless  occur  to  the  reader,  that  the 
Savior  addressed  his  hearers  in  a  manner  that  seemed 
to  imply  that  they  were  destitute  of  any  good  hope  of 
eternal  life.  Nothing  was  more  frequently  on  his  lips 
than  the  offer  of  everlasting  life  to  those  who  would  be- 
come his  followers.  Nicodemus  was  told,  "  that  who- 
soever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 


PENALTY  OF  SIN.  55 


haa  been  forfeited. 

everlasting  life ;"  i.  e.  should  have  this  everlasting  life 
as  a  reward  of  his  faith.  The  Jews  were  exhorted  to 
"  labor  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for  that 
meat  which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life,  which  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  give  unto"  them.  In  other  words, 
the  Savior  promised  to  bestow  on  them  the  gift  of  ever- 
lasting life,  if  they  would  strive  for  it.  In  like  manner 
the  Savior  says  of  his  sheep,  "  I  give  unto  them  eternal 
life,  and  they  shall  never  perish."  Eternal  life  is  here 
equivalent  to  never  perishing ;  and  it  is  implied,  that 
without  this  gift  from  the  hands  of  Christ,  they  would 
inevitably  perish. 

In  these  and  similar  passages,  it  is  in  the  clearest 
manner  taught,  that  final  happiness,  here  spoken  of  un- 
der the  figure  of 4  everlasting,'  or, '  eternal  life,'  is  the  pe- 
culiar privilege  of  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  and  that 
it  was  to  bestow  this  happiness  on  all  who  should  be- 
lieve in  him,  that  he  came  into  the  world.  For  how 
could  the  Savior  make  such  an  offer,  and  propose  it  as 
a  reward  of  his  service,  if  those  to  whom  he  spake  were 
already  possessed  of  endless  happiness,  or  if  they  had 
never  forfeited  it  by  sin  ?  That  this  eternal  life  had 
been  forfeited,  appears  to  have  been  the  understanding 
of  those  who  heard  him.  The  young  ruler  asks,  "  Good 
Master!  what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  (procure) 
cfi-rnal  life  ?"  "  To  whom  shall  we  go  ?"  says  Peter, 
"  thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life." 

If,  now,  those  who  obtain  eternal  life  through  Christ, 
would,  but  for  him,  have  been  destitute  of  it — and  no- 
thing is  more  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible — it  follows 


56  UNFVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Eternal  life  the  same  as  temporal  life. 

inevitably  that  their  portion  would  have  been  eternal 
death  ;  and  that  this  is  the  portion  of  all  by  nature. 
Eternal  life  is  equivalent  to  endless  bliss,  and  conse- 
quently eternal  death  can  mean  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  endless  misery.  But  if  man  "  never  was  exposed  to 
any  such  calamity,"  how  could  the  Redeemer  promise 
to  save  men  from  it  by  the  gift  of  endless  bliss  ? 

It  is  manifest,  that  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  penal- 
ty of  sin,  from  which  Christ  came  to  save  men,  was  end- 
less misery,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  4  everlasting 
life'  is  not  endless  life.  But  what  is  too  hard  for  a 
Universalist  1  All  that  he  has  to  do  is  to  deny,  and 
require  others  to  prove.  You  would  not  require  him, 
surely,  to  prove  a  negative.  Accordingly,  it  is  most 
boldly  denied  by  these  new  expositors  of  Scripture,  that 
the  phrase  l  everlasting,'  or  c  eternal  life,'  relates  to 
another  world.  It  simply  means,  happiness  in  this 
world !  "  It  is  believed  by  Universalists,"  says  Mr. 
Lewis,  ('  Mag.  and  Adv.'  VIII.  26,)  "  that  there  is  ^'pre- 
sent salvation,  (also  denominated { everlasting,'  or  (  eter- 
nal life,')  which  it  is  our  duty  to  seek  and  cherish." 
But  Mr.  Sawyer  is  "  much  more  bold."  In  his '  Letters 
to  Remington,'  (p.  93,-)  he  says — "  Thefallacy  in  which 
you  indulge  yourself,  begins  by  assuming  that  eternal 
life  means  endless  felicity  in  heaven,  and  of  course  con- 
cludes that  eternal  torment  means  nothing  less  than 

endless  misery  in  hell.     I  deny  your  premise, 

and  call  upon  you  for  proof.  You  cannot  be  ignorant 
that  these  words  are  often  employed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  express  the  life  and  peace  which  the  Christian 


PENALTY  OF  SIN.  57 


Eternal  life  has  nothing  to  do  with  heaven. 

enjoys  in  the  Gospel,  here  in  this  world"  Is  there, 
then,  no  assumption  and  presumption  in  calling  that  a 
"  fallacy,"  which  has  obtained  the  almost  unanimous 
assent  of  the  wisest  of  men — men,  who  surely  have  had 
as  good  opportunities  to  know  the  truth  as  Mr.  S.  him- 
self ?  But  the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  unless  the  pre- 
mises are  disproved.  Therefore  '  eternal  life'  cannot 
refer  to  another  world ! 

In  like  manner  Mr.  Skinner,  of  Boston,  tells  us,  in 
his  *  Universalism  Illustrated  and  Defended,'  (p.  241,) 
"  that  the  phrase, l  eternal  life,'  is  a  common  expression, 
to  denote  the  enjoyment  experienced  in  this  world, 
through  the  influence  of  the  Gospel  on  the  heart."  In 
other  words,  '  eternal'  is  the  same  as  '  temporal !' 
How  then,  are  we  to  understand  that  declaration  of 
Paul — "  For  the  things  v/hich  are  seen  are  temporal ; 
but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  eternal  ?"  What 
an  outrage  on  common  sense  do  these  writers  commit ! 

But  the  learned  Mr.  Balfour,  of  Charlestown,  Mass., 
does  not  hesitate  to  limit  every  passage,  in  which  the 
phrase,  '  eternal  life,'  occurs,  to  this  world.  In  his 
<  Reply  to  Professor  Stuart,'  (p.  60,)  he  says—"  I 
should  think  the  texts  need  only  be  read,  to  see  that 
they  do  not  say  anything  about  their  endless  happiness 
in  heaven.  On  the  contrary,  the  texts  speak  for  them- 
selves, that  '  eternal  life'  is  enjoyed  on  earth,  and  is  en- 
joyed by  every  believer."  Again,  (p.  74,) — "  You  as- 
sume, that  '  eternal  life'  refers  to  the  future  endless 
happiness  of  the  righteous."  "This  I  deny."  "(  Eternal 


58 


UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


An  Experiment.  Nonsense. 

life'  designates  indeed  the  happiness  of  the  righteous, 
but  it  is  their  happiness  in  this  world." 

Let  us  now  try  the  experiment  of  '  only  reading' 
some  of  the  texts  which  speak  of  '  eternal,'  or  c  ever- 
lasting life.'  Mr.  B.  refers  us  to  Luke  xviii.  30  :  "  Who 
shall  not  receive  manifold  more  in  this  present  time,  and 
in  the  world  to  come  life  everlasting,"  or  "  happiness 
in  this  world  /"  The  passage  in  John  xii.  25,  is  also 
referred  to.  Let  us  read  it  according  to  Mr.  B.'s  defini- 
tion :  "  He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it ;  and  he 
that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  life 
eternal,"  or,  unto  "  happiness  in  this  world  /"  But,  per- 
haps, we  shall  be  more  fortunate  with  John  vi.  27 ; 
"  Labor  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but  for  that 
which  endureth  unto  everlasting  life,"  or,  unto  "  hap- 
piness in  this  world  /"  And  does  not  the  happiness 
enjoyed  in  this  world  perish  ? 

What  complete  nonsense  should  we  make  of  the 
Scriptures,  if  we  should  consent  to  be  led  by  such  inter- 
preters !  Who  cannot  see,  at  once,  that  they  are  de- 
termined that  the  Bible  shall  not  be  so  read  or  under- 
stood, as  to  speak  of  future  punishment  in  the  immortal 
state  ?  At  one  time  we  are  told,  that  the  word  '  hell' 
does  not  refer  to  another  world,  because  £  everlasting' 
is  not  connected  with  it ;  and  at  another,  because  it  is. 
Mr.  Balfour,  in  his  '  First  Inquiry,'  in  order  to  prove 
that  the  word  c  hell'  does  not  signify  a  place  of  end- 
less misery  for  the  wicked,  says,  (p.  222,) — "that 
none  of  the  original  words  translated  in  the  common 
version,  \(  eternal,'  '  everlasting,'  and  '  forever,'  are 


PENALTY  OF  MN.  59 


Absurdity.  %  Torturing  criticism. 

once  connected  with  Gehenna,  or  hell."  But  on  p. 
153,  he  remarks,  "If  it  should  be  said,  that  '  it  is  the 
word  '  everlasting,'  applied  to  the  punishment  of  hell, 
that  proves  that  hell  is  a  place  of  future  misery/  to  this 
1  answer,  that  it  is  this  very  word  *  everlasting?  being 
applied  to  Gehenna  or  hell-fire,  that  convinces  me  that 
hell  has  no  reference  to  a  place  of  eternal  misery  for  the 
wicked!!" 

What  cannot  such  men  prove,  or  rather,  disprove  f 
"It  is  th«  \t:y  word  l  everlasting,'  applied"  by  the 
Savior  to  the  word  life,  that  convinces  them  that  it  has 
no  reference  to  another  world !  This  life  is  nothing 
more  than  a  temporal  life !  Why  ?  Because  the  Savior 
calls  it  f  eternal'  "  ! ! !  Admirable  !  Who  can  now 
question  the  doctrine  thus  established  ? 

There  are  forty  passages  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  this  phrase  is  used.  And  these  have  usually 
been  regarded  as  proof-texts  for  the  hope  of  heaven 
after  death.  In  no  other  passages  is  the  doctrine  of 
endless  blessedness  more  clearly  taught.  Take  these 
away  and  what  remains  ?  What  else  can  endure  the 
torture  of  this  unsparing  criticism  ?  And  yet,  rather 
than  admit,  that  '  eternal'  or  *  everlasting  destruc- 
tion' means  endless  misery  they  are  willing  to  give  up 
every  passage  in  which  the  word  translated  *  eternal,' 
or  '  <  vt-i  l;i>ting'  occurs,  tlrough  thereby  they  tear 
away  the  most  solid  foundations  of  a  happy  immortali- 
ty beyond  the  grave.  What  reliance  can  be  placed  on 
such  interpreters  ?  Is  it  not  a  venture,  too  fearful,  to 
trust  the  soul  in  such  hands, — to  rest  our  hopes  of  hea- 
ven on  such  evident  wresting  of  Scripture  ? 


60  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

An  empty  assurance.  Eternal  death. 

Some  of  them  appear  to  be  sensible  themselves  of 
this  difficulty.  And  so  Mr.  Whittemore,  in  his  ( Notes 
on  the  Parables,'  is  constrained  to  assure  his  readers, 
that  he  is  not  wholly  an  infidel.  "  Notwithstanding," 
he  says,  (p.  262,)  "  the  everlasting  life  spoken  of  in 
the  New  Testament  is  applied  in  these  pages  to  that 
state  of  rest,  purity  and  joy  into  which  believers  of  the 
Gospel  entered,  whenever  they  embraced  the  Gospel, 
the  author  takes  this  opportunity  to  say  that  he  undoubt- 
ingly  believes  that  a  future  state  of  immortality  is  re- 
vealed in  the  New  Testament !"  But  where,  if  not 
there,  where,  he  says,  it  is  not  found  ? 

If,  however,  our  Universalists  are^  so  confident  that 
the  word  in  question  does  not  properly  mean  "  endless," 
why  are  they  so  often  heard  exclaiming  with  exulta- 
tion, and  quoting  Macknight  for  the  purpose  (Sawyer  on 
the  '  Penalty  of  Sin,'  p.  18,)  "  that  although  in  Scrip- 
ture the  expression  '  eternal  life'  is  often  met  with,  we 
no  where  find  '  eternal'  joined  with  '  death.'  "  Do  not 
such  remarks  betray  an  apprehension  that  (  eternal' 
may  mean  6  endless'  ?  And  of  what  avail  would  it 
be,  if  such  a  passage  were  found  ?  They  would  tell  us, 
just  as  they  now  do  in  regard  to  the  phrases,, c  everlast- 
ing punishment,'  and  '  everlasting  destruction,'  that 
they  refer  only  to  suffering  before  death.  So  that  such 
an  omission  on  the  part  of  the  sacred  writers,  according 
to  their  own  showing,  does  not^rove  that  endless  pun- 
ishment is  not  the  proper  penalty  of  the  divine  law. 


CHAPTER  V. 

NATIVE   DEPRAVITY. ORIGIN   OF   SIN. 

Sin  not  an  infinite  evil — Native  Depravity  denied — The  ac- 
count of  the  Fall  fabulous — Man  by  nature  as  good  now 
as  Adam  ever  was — Origin  of  Sin — God  not  the  lawgiver, 
but  the  mind  itself— Sin  fulfills  the  will  of  God— The  mind 
not  the  sinner,  but  the  flesh— God  the  author  of  sin — Men 
not  totally  depraved. 

"  But  what  is  man  in  his  own  proud  esteem  1 
Hear  him — himself  the  poet  and  the  theme : 
A  monarch  cloth'd  with  majesty  and  awe, 
His  mind  his  kingdom,  and  his  will  his  law, 
Grace  in  his  mien,  and  glory  in  his  eyes, 
Supreme  on  earth,  and  worthy  of  the  skies, 
Strength  in  his  heart,  dominion  in  his  nod, 
And,  thunderbolts  excepted,  quite  a  God!1' — COWPER. 

THE  penalty  of  a  law  should  manifestly  bear  some 
proportion  to  the  evil  of  transgression.  If  sin  be  an 
evil  of  infinite  magnitude,  it  cannot  be  unjust  for  God 
to  attach  to  his  law  the  penalty  of  endless  misery. — 
But  the  Universalist  denies  that  the  penalty  of  the  di- 
vine law  is  misery  without  end.  He  must,  therefore, 
show,  that  sin  is  not  as  great  an  evil,  as  has  commonly 
been  supposed,  and  that  mankind  deserve  not  an  unlim- 
ited punishment. 

In  this  manner  Mr.  Ballou  begins  his  <  Treatise  on 
Atonement.'  He  first  inquires  into  the  nature  of  sin, 
6 


62  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Sin  a  finite  evil.  Fall  of  man  denied. 

and  attempts  to  show,  (p.  15,)  "  that  sin,  in  its  nature, 
ought  to  be  considered  finite  and  limited,  rather  than 
infinite  and  unlimited,  as  has  by  many  been  supposed." 
This  common  supposition  he  proceeds  in  a  very  sum- 
mary manner  "  to  explode,"  and  then  remarks,  (p.  19,) 
"  enough,  undoubtedly,  is  said  to  show  the  egregious 
mistake  of  supposing  sin  to  be  infinite."  And  as  to  what 
the  Temanite  said  to  Job,  (xxii.  5,)  "  Is  not  thy  wick- 
edness great  ?  and  thine  iniquities  infinite  ?" — he  thinks 
them  not  worthy  of  attention  because  they  "  are  neither 
the  words  of  God,  nor  of  one  whom  he  approved." 

The  nature  of  sin  being  thus  disposed  of,  and  shown, 
as  he  thinks,  to  be  limited  and  finite,  the  way  is  pre- 
pared for  his  views  of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  of 
the  atonement  Sin  being  a  trifling  evil,  it  can  be  easi- 
ly removed.  And,  hence,  he  conceives  an  exalted 
opinion  of  man's  moral  worth.  The  sin  of  Adam  be- 
ing limited,  he  cannot  conceive  of  it  as  affecting  his 
posterity.  Therefore  it  becomes  an  established  doc- 
trine with  him  and  his  disciples,  that 

III.  MANKIND  ARE  BORN  AS  PURE  AS  ADAM  WAS  WHEN  HE 

WAS  CREATED. 

Mr.  Ballou  cannot  admit  the  common  doctrine  of 
man's  fall,  and  the  consequent  corruption  of  his  nature. 
He  treats  the  account  in  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis 
as  fabulous,  or,  at  least,  figurative.  "  Should  it  be  said," 
he  remarks,  (p.  35,)  "  that  this  garden  was  a  literal  gar- 
den, that  the  tree  of  life  was  a  literal  tree,  and  that  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  was  also  literal ; 


DENIAL    OP   NATIVE    DEPRAVITY.  63 

All  men  born  as  pure  an  Adam  ever  was. 

I  should  be  glad  to  be  informed,  what  evidence  can  be 
adduced  in  support  of  such  an  idea."  In  this  manner 
he  gets  rid  of  "  the  old  serpent,"  and  all  tempters,  save 
fleshly  appetite.  And  what  was  effectual  then  in  lead- 
ing man  to  sin,  he  maintains,  is  the  same  that  "  now 
worketh  in  the  children  of  disobedience."  We  come 
into  the  world  with  animal  natures,  such  as  Adam  had, 
and  these  are  sufficient  in  his  opinion  to  account  for  all 
sin.  "  These  conflicting  laws  of  flesh  and  spirit,"  he 
remarks,  (p.  34,)  "  have  always  existed  in  man  from  his 
first  formation,  and  so  long  as  they  both  continue  to 
exert  their  powers  in  opposition  to  each  other,  so  long 
will  sin  remain,  and  continue  to  produce  condemnation." 

The  way  being  thus  prepared  for  exploding  the  an- 
cient dogma  of  original  sin,  or  native  depravity,  it  is 
now  boldly  asserted  that  we  are  as  good  by  nature  as 
Adam  ever  was.  "  In  our  opinion,"  says  '  the  Univer- 
salist  Expositor,'  (I.  248,)  "  every  man,  from  the  first 
to  the  last,  comes  into  the  world  under  moral  circum- 
stances precisely  the  same.  We  are  ushered  into  be- 
ing in  the  state  of  perfect  innocency,  with  no  guilt  or 
vice  whatsoever ;  and  from  all  that  we  can  learn,  this 
was  the  condition  of  the  parents  of  our  race,  when  they 
came  from  the  forming  hands  of  their  Creator." 

In  former  days,  there  was  no  better  authority  among 
Universalists  than  Jflmer  Kneeland,  now,  and  for  some 
time  past,  an  avowed  Atheist  of  the  worst  stamp.  I 
can  remember  well  to  have  heard  a  friend,  who  attend- 
ed his  ministry  in  this  city,  and  greatly  admired  him, 
remark  to  myself,  "  Don't  you  think  that  Mr.  Kneeland 


64  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Abner  Kneeland.  The  inind  as  pure  as  white  paper. 

knows  what  the  Scriptures  mean  better  than  you  do — 
a  man  that  can  read  fourteen  languages  1"  He  was 
an  oracle  indeed,  and  wielded  a  power  so  great  that 
when  he  fell  off  to  infidelity  he  drew  scores,  not  a  few, 
with  him  into  that  vortex. 

"  His  tongue 

Dropp'd  manna,  and  could  make  the  worse  appear 
The  better  reason,  to  perplex  and  dash 
Maturest  counsels." 

When  his  star  was  in  the  zenith,  he  published  a  vo- 
lume of (  Lectures'  which  were  then  regarded  as  unan- 
swerable, as  well  as  accurately  expressive  of  the  tenets 
held  by  the  sect.  In  the  second  edition  of  those  '  Lec- 
tures' he  informs  us,  (p.  62,)  "  that  man  is  born  into  the 
world  totally  destitute  of  a  moral  or  religious  character, 
as  pure,  in  every  moral  or  religious  sense,  as  a  clean 
piece  of  white  paper;  without  a  single  impression,  but 
capable  of  receiving  many;  and  also  susceptible  of 
blots  and  stains."  Again,  (p.  78,)  he  adds — "he 
comes  into  the  world  perfectly  innocent,  in  which  state 
he  is  a  fit  subject  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  he  is 
morally  inclined  to  good,  but,  nevertheless,  prone  to 
evil." 

The  same  is  taught  by  0.  A.  Skinner,  of  Boston.  He 
maintains,  ({  Universalism  Illustrated,'  pp.  80, 81, 78,) 
that  "  every  child  is  born  into  the  world  with  as  much 
of  the  image  of  God  as  Adam  had  when  he  was  cre- 
ated." "  We  have  the  same  natural  and  moral  con- 
stitution which  he  had  ;  and  consequently,  the  common 
opinion  about  the  fall  is  altogether  imaginary."  "  Such 


DENIAL  OP  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  65 

Adam's  sin  nothing  to  us.  Blind  adherents. 

a  fall  could  not  affect  his  posterity,  in  any  different  way 
from  what  the  sin  of  a  parent  will  now  affect  his  chil- 
dren." "  Adam  had  the  same  appetites  and  passions,  the 
same  propensities  to  sin,  that  his  posterity  have."  Here 
it  is  unblushingly  maintained,  that  mankind  now  have 
no  more  "  propensities  to  sin,"  than  Adam  had  before 
his  fall !  The  same  writer  informs  us,  (p.  91,)  what 
"  views  of  the  natural  state  of  man"  are  held  by  the 
denomination  : — "  We  believe — That  man  is  by  na- 
ture, i.  e.  as  he  is  born  into  the  world,  equally  free  from 
sin  and  destitute  of  holiness,  no  more  inclined  to  vice 
than  to  virtue,  and  equally  capable,  in  the  ordinary  use 
of  his  faculties,  and  the  common  assistance  afforded 
him,  of  either." 

Mr.  Le  Fevre  says  of  man,  ('  Gospel  Anchor/  II. 
289,)  that  his  "  moral  character  is  the  result  of  educa- 
tion and  is  not  an  innate  principle.  When  he  comes 
into  the  world,  his  mind  is  unsullied  as  a  sheet  of  white 
paper,  without  a  single  impression  as  to  what  is  good 
or  what  is  evil,  and  consequently  capable  of  receiving 
good  impressions  or  of  being  stained  with  blots." 

And  so  say  they  all.  With  no  claim  to  originality, 
they  scarcely  ever  pretend  to  strike  out  a  new  path  for 
themselves.  While  they  pretend  to  be  the  only  ones 
who  dare  to  think  for  themselves,  they  allow  Messrs. 
Ballou,  Balfour,  and  Co.,  to  do  all  their  thinking  for 
them.  As  these,  their  captains,  lead,  they  follow, 
though  often  much  beyond  their  depth. 

If  these  men  are  parents,  they  must  have  been  bless- 
ed with  remarkable  children,  or  they  would  have  found 
6* 


66  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  true  Bible-doctrine.  Sin  defined. 

their  own  offspring  giving  the  lie  to  their  doctrines. 
And  not  only  they,  but  their  hearers,  must  in  this  res- 
pect have  been  privileged  beyond  all  the  world,  if  they 
can  discover  in  their  children  no  more  "  propensities  to 
sin,"  than  Adam  had  before  his  fall.  I  have  hitherto 
believed  it  to  be  invariably  true,  as  taught  in  Scripture, 
that  "  a  child  left  to  himself  bringeth  his  mother  to 
shame,"  and  that  every  child  "  goes  astray  as  soon" 
as  it  is  capable  of  doing  it.  But,  if  the  Universalist 
doctrine  is  true,  how  happens  it,  that  every  individual, 
of  every  generation,  race,  clime,  and  condition,  is  just 
as  sure  to  sin,  when  he  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  good 
and  evil,  as  he  is  to  breathe  ?  Why  is  it,  that  no  pos- 
sible change  in  the  circumstances  of  men  in  the  least 
degree  vary  this  result  ?  Such  a  uniform  result  argues 
a  uniform  cause — a  cause  .commensurate  with  the  effects. 
The  Bible  says,  "  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world ;"  "by  the^offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation ;"  and  that  "  by  one  man's  diso- 
bedience many  were  made  sinners."  Which  now  shall 

we  believe  1     Judge  ye. 

Closely  allied  to  this  doctrine  of  native  purity  is  their 

account  of  the  origin  of  sin.      They  profess  to  believe 

that 

IV.  SIN  HAS  ITS  ORIGIN,  NOT  IN  THE  MIND,  BUT,  IN  THE  ANI- 
MAL NATURE. 

Let  us  see  how  they  define  sin.  "  Sin,"  says  Mr. 
Ballou,  ('  Atonement,'  p.  15,)  "  is  the  violation  of  a 
law  which  exists  in  the  mind,  which  law  is" — not  the 


ORIGIN  OF  SIN.  67 


God  not  llw  law-giver :  Man  his  own  law-giver  ! 

ten  commandments,  nor  any  other  express  statutes,  but 
— "  the  imperfect  knowledge  men  have  of  moral  good. 
This  law  is  transgressed,  whenever,  by  the  influence  of 
temptation,  a  good  understanding  yields  to  a  contrary 
choice."      Who  now,  is  it,  that  gives  or  makes  this 
law  ?  Who  is  the  legislator  1  Common  sense  would  say, 
that  the  law,  the  transgression  of  which  is  called  *  sin' 
in   Scripture,  proceeds  from,  and   is  enacted  by,  God. 
But  this  they  deny.      The  legislator  in  this  case  "  is  a 
capacity  to  understand,  connected  with  the  causes  and 
means  of  knowledge ;"  i.  e.,  in  plain  words,  it  is  the 
mind  itself,  in  which  this  capacity  resides.     It  cannot 
be,  they  say,  that  God  is  the  lawgiver,  for  (pp.  16,  17,) 
"  the  intention  of  a  legislature,  in  legislation,  must  be 
thwarted,  in  order  for  the  law  to  take  cognizance  of 
sin.     Now  if  God,  in  a  direct  sense  of  speaking,  be  the 
legislator  of  the  law  which  is  thwarted  by  transgres- 
sion, in  the  same  direct  sense  of  speaking,  his  intentions 
in  legislation  are  thwarted  ;"  then  "  the  design  of  the 
Deity  must  be  abortive ;"  but,  "  if  God  possesses  infi- 
nite wisdom,  he  could  never  intend  any  thing  to  take 
place,  or  be,  that  will  not,"  else  "  we  admit  of  a  disap- 
pointment to   the  Supreme  Being,"  and  "  it  follows 
that  we  have  no  satisfactory  evidence  whereby  to  prove 
that  any  thing,  at  present,  in  the  whole  universe,  is  as 
he  intended."     "  The  admission  of  this  terror  would 
sink  the  mind  to  the  nether  parts  of  moral  depravity, 
where  darkness  reigns  with  all  its  horrors." 

Such  is  the  reasoning,  by  which  God  is  deposed 
from  his  law-giving  throne,  and  man  is  made  his  own 


68  UNFVERSALISM   AS    IT   IS. 

Conviction  of  guilt  excluded.  Mind  not  the  source  of  sin, 

law-giver ;  sin,  too,  is  deprived  of  its  malignity,  and 
made  to  coincide  perfectly  with  the  will  of  God.  It 
follows,  most  surely,  from  such  premises,  that  every 
sinner,  in  every  act  of  sin,  does  exactly  what  "  the  Ml- 
wise  desires  him  to  do  ;  as  perfectly  fulfills  the  will  of 
his  Maker,  as  if  in  all  things  he  conformed  precisely  to 
the  dictates  of  law.  Hence  the  Universalist's  self-com- 
placency. It  is  impossible  for  him  to  feel  a  sense  of 
guilt,  if  such  sentiments  take  possession  of  his  mind ; 
for  how  much  soever  he  may  violate  the  law  of  his 
mind,  he  cannot  by  such  transgressions  violate  or 
"  thwart"  the  will  of  God.  How  can  he  be  brought 
under  conviction  of  his  guilt  ?  By  no  possible  means, 
as  long  as  he  holds  to  such  infidel  absurdities. 

But  the  error  stops  not  here.  Sin  is  not  the  act  of 
an  independent  mind,  free  to  choose  or  refuse  !  It  is, 
as  they  say,  merely  a  want  of  conformity  between  the 
choice  of  a  man  and  his  judgment ;  which  choice  re» 
suits  inevitably  from,  or  is  determined  by,  the  propen- 
sities or  passions  of  his  amiable  nature.  The  mind  has 
no  sympathy  with  sin, — never  consents  to  it, — is  a 
poor  helpless  creature,  under  the  yoke  of  a  hard  task- 
master, from  which  it  would  gladly  be  delivered,  and 
so  at  once  be  pure  again.  I  ask  not — '  does  this  re- 
presentation accord  with  Scripture  V — for  I  would  not 
insult  the  reader  so  much  as  to  suppose  that  he  could 
have  such  a  thought,  unless  he  be  a  perfect  stranger 
to  the  Bible.  But  the  reader  may  be  allowed  to  ask 
for  the  evidence  of  such  charges.  Let  him  then  read 
the  following : — 


ORIGIN  OF  SIN.  69 


Moral  evil  caused  by  natural  evil. 

Mr.  Ballou,  in  the  treatise  already  referred  to,  (pp. 
24, 31,  32,)  thus  plainly  speaks  : — "  The  origin  of  sin 
has,  among  Christians  in  general,  been  very  easily  ac- 
counted for ;  but  in  a  way,  I  must  confess,  that  never 
gave  me  any  satisfaction,  since  I  came  to  think  for 
myself  on  subjects  of  this  nature."  "  It  may  assist  us  in 
arriving  at  a  satisfactory  solution  of  our  subject,  to  con- 
sider, in  the  first  place,  the  origin  of  natural  evil.  This 
is  unquestionably  the  necessary  result  of  the  physical  or- 
ganization and  constitution  of  animal  nature"  "  It  has 
long  been  the  opinion  of  Christian  divines,  that  natural 
evil  owes  its  origin  to  what  is  denominated  moral  evil 
or  sin."  "  We  feel  fully  convinced  that  the  very  reverse 
of  the  opinion  is  true."  "  The  ground  we  shall  take  is, 
that  natural  evil  owes  its  origin  to  the  original  consti- 
tution of  our  animal  nature,  and  that  moral  evil  or  sin 
owes  its  origin  to  natural  evil."  "  From  our  natural 
constitution,  composed  of  our  bodily  elements,  we  are 
led  to  act  in  obedience  to  carnal  appetites,  which  justifies 
the  conclusion  that  sin  is  the  work  of  the  flesh" 

That  .these  views  are  not  confined  to  the  breast  of  a 
single  individual,  but  are  popular  in  the  denomination, 
appears  from  the  fact  that  the  f  Treatise  on  Atonement' 
has  "  probably  been  circulated  more  than  any  other 
Universalist  work  in  America."  If  it  be  said,  that  its 
popularity  is  owing  to  his  views  of  the  Atonement,  it 
may  be  replied,  that  this  account  of  the  origin  of  sin  is 
essential  to  those  views. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  work,  in  which  this  doctrine 
of  the  nature  of  sin  is  defended.  Abner  Kneeland,  as 


70  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Mistake  about  sin.  Sin  the  fulillment  of  God's  law. 

will  be  seen  in  his  f  Lectures,'  embraced  these  views 
most  cordially,  and  acknowledged  himself  indebted  for 
them  to  "  that  excellent  and  unanswerable  work — 
Ballou  on  Atonement."  He  declares,  (p.  81,)  "  that 
God  cannot  be  considered,  in  any  direct  sense,  the  legis- 
lator of  that  law  which  is  transgressed  by  sin."  In  an- 
swer to  the  objection,  that  in  this  case  "  there  is  not, 
neither  can  there  be,  any  such  thing  as  sin  in  the  uni- 
verse," he  asks, — "  Would  it  not  be  more  rational  to 
say  that  sin  is  something  very  different  from  what  has 
been  generally  supposed  ?"  He  then  proceeds  to  re- 
mark, (p.  82,)  that  "  the  law  of  a  man's  own  under- 
standing is  the  law  which  is  transgressed  by  sin ;"  and 
that  "  man  is  not  amenable"  to  "  any  other  law." 
To  the  question,  "  who  is  the  law-giver  ?"  in  this  case, 
he  replies  (p.  83;)  that  "  a  man's  own  conscience,  which 
is  the,  result  of  all  the  knowledge  he  possesses,  from 
whatever  source  obtained,  is  the  legislator  of  that  law 
which  is  violated  whenever  he  commits  sin."  "  This 
law  may  be,  and  often  is  transgressed  by  the  very  acts 
through  which  the  perfect  law  of  God  is  fulfilled."  So 
that  sin  is  often  obedience  to  "  the  perfect  law  of  God  !" 
On  such  an  absurdity  I  need  not  remark.  The  advo- 
cate of  such  sentiments  has  found  his  proper  place. 
Such  views  accord  well  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Wright  and  Owen-school. 

The  following  extracts,  on  the  same  subject,  are  from 
the  pen  of  Mr.  Austin  of  Danvers,  Mass.,  and  are  ta- 
ken from  the  '  Universalist  Expositor,'  a  theological 
review,  recently  suspended  for  want  of  support,  but  re- 


ORIGIN  OF  SIN.  71 


Mind  no  power  to  §in.  .V -\  •  T  prompt!  to  it. 

garded  in  the  order  as  of  the  highest  authority  for  ex- 
position of  doctrine.  He  remarks,  (II.  pp.  295,  6,)  that 
"  sin  does  not,  and  cannot  originate  in,  or  proceed  from, 
the  mind,  spirit,  or  soul — that  portion  of  our  nature 
which  is  from  above,  and  which  constitutes  the  image 
of  God."  "  What  faculty  or  power  does  the  mind 
possess,  by  which  it  can  be  the  source  of  sin  ?"  "  We 
may  enumerate  all  the  capabilities  that  properly  con- 
stitute the  mind,  and  I  greatly  err,  or  we  search  in  vain 
for  one  that  is  the  source  of  sin."  "  The  inquiry  is, 
*  Do  the  powers  of  the  human  mind  sin  ?  do  they  prompt 
to  known  and  wilful  wrong-doing  T  How  can  they  do 
so  ?"  "  This  would  seem  to  be  as  impossible,  as  for  the 
sun  to  send  down  floods  of  darkness  intermingled  with 
its  light.  Does  the  reader  inquire — '  If  the  mind,  or 
soul,  forms  no  portion  of  the  source  of  wickedness, 
whence  does  it  proceed  ?'  I  answer,  it  is  very  evident 
to  me,  that  sin  proceeds — not  necessarily,  but  inciden- 
tally— from  the  passions,  propensities,  appetites,  and  im- 
pulses, of  the  lower,  the  animal  or  bodily  portion  of 
our  nature,  as  existing  in  this  life." 

Having  laid  down  this  startling  proposition,  and,  as 
he  thought,  established  it,  the  writer  waxes  bold,  and 
takes  still  higher  ground.  Read  the  following  para- 
graph, (pp.  297,  8,)  and  learn  how  completely  the  hu- 
man "  mind,  spirit,  or  soul,"  is  freed  from  the  imputa- 
tion of  sin : — 

"  May  I  not  with  propriety  proceed  another  step, 
and  assert,  not  only  that  sin  does  not  proceed  from  the 
mind,  but  that  the  mind  or  sottl,  so  far  as  it  is  enlight- 


72  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Mind  never  consents  to  sin.  God  the  author  of  sin. 

ened,  never  consents  to  wickedness  ?  When  uninstructed 
in  regard  to  the  nature  and  influences  of  a  certain  ac- 
tion, the  mind,  of  course,  is  not  competent  to  decide 
upon  its  character,  or  determine  whether  it  is  right  or 
wrong.  Its  assent  to  sin,  under  such  circumstances,  is 
unintentional  and  guiltless.  But  when  the  mind  is 
clearly  instructed  in  the  principles  of  morality, — when 
it  is  fully  prepared  to  decide  whether  a  deed  is  proper 
or  sinful,  does  it  then  ever  give  consent  to  the  sinful  ?" 
.  .  "  NEVER !"  .  .  "Although,  in  these  circumstances, 
the  mind  is  in  bondage  to  the  propensities,  and  its 
higher  promptings  are  lost  sight  of,  in  the  whirl  of 
unbridled  appetites,  still  it  participates  not  in  their 
wickedness,  but  retains  the  integrity  of  its  purer  nature." 

And  was  it  thus,  that  Hosea,  and  Amos,  Isaiah,  Je- 
remiah, and  Joel,  Ezekiel,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi 
preached  ?  Does  this  style  of  address  bear  any  resem- 
blance to  the  Savior's  in  his  discourse  to  the  Pharisees, 
Peter's_,on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Stephen's  on  the  eve  of 
martyrdom,  or  Paul's  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  and  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Romans  ?  And  yet  they  call  this — Chris- 
tianity ! 

As  already  intimated,  these  men  do  not  hesitate,  not 
only  to  make  all  sin  to  be  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God, 
but,  to  make  him  the  author  of  sin.  "  Perhaps,"  says 
Mr.  Ballou,  (p.  23,)  "  the  reader,  by  this  time,  is  ready 
to  say,  according  to  this  reasoning,  '  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  real  evil  in  the  universe.'  If  by  (  real 
evil,'  be  meant  something  that  ought  not  to  be,  in  re- 
spect to  all  the  consequences  which  attend  it,  /  cannot 


ORIGIN  OF  SIN.  73 


God  himself,  the  source  of  all  moral  evil. 

admit  of  Us  existence."  Then,  having  shown  what  he 
thinks  to  be  the  "  cause,  or  origin"  of  sin,  he  adds,  (p. 
36,) — "  But,  perhaps  the  objector  will  say, '  this  denies 
the  liberty  of  the  will,  and  makes  God  the  author  of 
Sin.'  To  which  I  reply, — that  God  may  be  the  innocent 
and  holy  cause  of  that,  which,  in  a  limited  sense,  is  sin." 
"  If  it  should  be  granted,  that  sin  will  finally  terminate 
for  good,  in  the  moral  system,  it  will  then  be  necessary 
to  admit  that  God  is  its  first  cause."  "  If  God,  (p.  37,) 
produced  an  agency,  and  that  agency  produced  sin,  it 
argues  that  God  is  the  first  cause. — If  this  mode  of 
reasoning  be  faulted,  I  ask,  '  Is  not  God  the  origin  and 
cause  of  all  moral  righteousness  V  None  can  be  per- 
verse enough  to  say — '  No.'  Then  I  ask  again,  <  If 
moral  agency,  created  by  God,  be  not  the  original 
cause  of  moral  righteousness,  by  what  rule  of  reasoning 
can  it  be  made  the  original  cause  of  transgression  T  " 

Thus  in  the  same  sense  in  which  God  is  the  source 
of  all  moral  righteousness,  is  he  the  source  of  all 
moral  evil!  Thus  sin  is  the  work,  not-of  the  hu- 
man mind  or  spirit,  but,  primarily,  of  God ;  and  second- 
arily, of  the  animal  nature !  The  reader  cannot  fail  to 
perceive  how  completely  this  view  of  the  origin  of  sin, 
puts  to  flight  the  orthodox  notion  of  its  being  so  great 
an  evil ;  and  how  cruel  and  unjust  it  would  be,  if  God 
should  punish  with  endless  misery,  a  poor  unfortunate, 
whose  faults  were  entirely  attributable  to  that  animal 
nature,  which  was  God's  own  workmanship ! 

I  need  not  spend  time,  after  such  an  exhibition  of  the 
integrity  and  purity   of  the  human  mind,  or  soul,  to 
7 


74  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Man  not  totally  depraved.  They  cannot  be  convicted  of  guilt. 

show,  that  they  all  sneer  at  the  idea  of  the  entire  de- 
pravity of  man,  and  maintain  that 

V.  MAN  NEVER  BECOMES  TOTALLY  DEPRAVED. 

"  The  opinion  of  our  doctors,"  says  Mr.  Ballou  in 
his  <  Notes  on  the  Parables,'  (p.  89,)  "  that  the  very 
nature  of  man  is  so  depraved  that  there  is  nothing 
morally  good  in  it,  and  that  it  is  totally  averse  to  the 
nature  of  God,  is  doubtless  erroneous"  A  writer  in  the 
e  Magazine  and  Advocate,'  maintains,  (VII.  11,)  that 
"  of  all  the  absurd  notions  which  characterize  the 
creeds  of  Partialists,  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  is 
among  the  most  inconsistent  with  reason  and  revela- 
tion." Another,  who  has  since  given  unequivocal 
evidence  in  his  own  conduct  of  possessing  a  heart  in- 
clined to  evil  lusts,  declares,  (p.  75,)  that  the  doctrine 
"  is  in  violation  of  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Scriptures, — a 
reproach  upon  the  Creator, — and  opposed  to  all  known 
facts."  Mr.  Skinner,  of  Utica,  declares,  (p.  303)  "  that 
the  doctrine,  being  opposed  to  reason  and  common 
observation,  is  false  and  untenable."  And  we  are  as- 
sured by  Mr.  S.  R.  Smith  of  Albany,  (VIII.  197,)  "  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  total  moral  depravity  of  mankind 
is  neither  agreeable  with  reason  and  experience,  nor 
taught  in  the  Bible." 

With  such  views  of  the  nature  and  origin  of  sin,  as 
have  obtained  currency  among  Universalists,  it  would 
indeed  be  impossible  to  convince  them,  that  "there  is 
none  righteous,  no,  not  one ;  there  is  none  that  seeketh 
after  God ;  they  have  all  gone  out  of  the  way,  they 


MAN  NOT  TOTALLY  DEPRAVED.          75 

Bible-doctrine  unintelligible  to  them.  A  matter  of  wonder."? 

are  together  become  unprofitable,  there  is  none  that 
doeth  good,  no,  not  one.  The  heart  is  deceitful  above 
all  things  and  desperately  wicked ;  the  heart  of  the 
sons  of  men  is  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil ;  is  not  sub- 
ject to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  Surely, 
all  this,  and  much  more  to  the  same  purpose,  must  be 
unintelligible  to  men,  who  maintain  that  the  human 
mind  or  soul  has  no  affinity  for  sin,  and  that  sin  it- 
self is  nothing  more  than  the  workings  of  the  animal 
nature ! 

It  will  cease  to  be  a  matter  of  surprise  to  the  read- 
er, that  such  teachers  should  not  be  able  to  see  the  jus- 
tice of  God  in  punishing  sin  for  ever,  nor  that  the 
Bible  teaches  that  there  will  be  such  punishment  in  a 
future  state.  It  is  of  no  use  to  argue  with  them, 
about  the  meaning  of  the  words  translated, '  everlast- 
ing,' '  eternal,'  '  forever  and  ever.'  They  are  deter- 
mined to  make  them  suit  their  theory  of  sin,  and  when 
you  have  exhausted  your  proof,  they  are  more  confirm- 
ed than  before. 

But  it  must  be  a  growing  matter  of  wonder,  that 
men,  who  thus  unsettle  the  very  foundations  of  human 
accountability,  subvert  the  plainest  doctrines  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  maintain,  in  opposition  to  universal  experience, 
the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  human  mind,  should  not 
blush  to  call  themselves  Christians.  That  they  are  ut- 
terly unworthy  of  such  an  honorable  name,  will  most 
fully  appear,  as  we  dive  deeper  into  their  corruptions 
of  sacred  truth. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

NO  PUNISHMENT  AFTER   DEATH. 

/s  sin  punished  after  death? — Views  of  Relly,  Murray,  and 
__  Chauncy — Sin  punished  only  in  this  life — No  punishment 
after  death,  a  novel  sentiment,  not  25  years  old — Secession 
of  the  Restorationists — Evasion  of  the  question  of  no  pun- 
ishment after  death — Culpable  indifference  to  the  question 
of  a  future  punishment — Appeal  to  their  preachers,  and  to 
the  people  themselves. 

"  Go,  riot,  drink,  andev'ry  ill  pursue, 
For  joys  eternal  are  reserv'd  for  you  : 
Fear  not  to  sin  till  death  shall  close  your  eyes, 
Live  as  you  please,  yours  is  th'  immortal  prize  : 
OLD  SERPENT  !  hail  I — thou  mad'st  a  just  reply 
To  mother  Eve, — '  Ye  shall  not  surely  die  ."  " 

MAN  is  too  good  a  being  to  be  lost  forever.  So 
says  Universalism.  He  comes  into  the  world  as  pure 
as  a  piece  of  white  paper,  and  if  he  becomes  defiled,  it 
is  more  owing  to  his  circumstances  than  his  own  ex- 
alted nature.  Consequently,  it  would  be  wrong  in 
God  to  afflict  him  forever,  for  the  misfortune  of  being 
made  a  creature  of  flesh  and  blood.  It  cannot  be. 
God  is  too  good.  (  Ye  shall  not  surely  die  !' 

But  that  man  suffers  for  sin,  no  one  doubts.  That 
he  suffers  until  the  close  of  his  earthly  life  is  equally 


NO  PUNISHMENT  AFTER  DEATH.  77 

Relly'n  views  of  future  punishment  Vicw»  of  Murray. 

obvious.  Will  he  continue  to  suffer  after  death? — 
And  if  so,  how  long  ? 

To  the  first  of  these  questions  an  affirmative  answer 
has  ever  been  given  by  all  believers  in  the  Bible,  until 
these  last  days  of  the  world.  Even  Universalism  did 
not  venture  to  deny  it,  until  it  had  gained  a  standing 
among  Christian  denominations.  Mr.  Relly,  the  foun- 
der of  the  sect,  "  admitted  the  doctrine  of  partial  suf- 
fering in  the  future  state — on  the  principle,  that,  while 
in  unbelief,  men  know  not,  nor  believe,  that  Jesus  hath 
put  away  tht'ir  sins  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself;  and, 
therefore,  they  are  oppressed  with  guilt  and  fear ;  and 
these  are  in  proportion  to  their  use  or  abuse  of  know- 
ledge j  to  their  receiving  or  obstinately  rejecting  the 
divine  evidences  and  demonstrations  of  grace  and  sal- 
vation. But  he  looked  beyond  all  evil  and  misery, 
whether  in  this  or  the  future  state,  to  a  time  of  univer- 
sal restitution."  ('  Mod.  Hist.'  p.  279.) 

Similar  were  the  views  entertained  by  his  disciple 
Murray,  through  whom  Universalism  was  imported  to 
these  shores.  "He  did  not  believe,  («  Life'  pp.  281,3,) 
that  the  wicked  would  be  immediately,  at  death,  intro- 
duced into  the  enjoyments  of  the  heavenly  kingdom. 
His  belief,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  is  thus  expressed 
in  his  own  language :  *  He  who  dies  in  unbelief,  lies 
down  in  sorrow,  and  will  rise  to  the  resurrection  of 
damnation.'  "  "  If,  in  the  article  of  death,  every  one  for 
whom  Christ  died  were  made  acquainted  with  him, 
and  consequently,  with  the  things  that  made  for  their 
peace,  why  trouble  mankind  in  life,  about  these  mat- 
7* 


78 


UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


Views  of  Murray  and  Chauncy.  Early  views  of  Ballou. 

ters  ?"  "  If  death  destroys  all  distinctions,  would  it  not 
be  well  to  say — '  Let  us  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry ;  for  to- 
morrow we  die  ?'  "  "If  every  one  of  the  ransomed  race 
are  to  be  equally  happy  in  death,  then,  although  they 
did  not  live  by  faith,  they  nevertheless  finish  their 
course  with  joy,  nor  shall  any  individual  arise  to  the 
resurrection  of  condemnation.  This  may  be  consola- 
tory, but  it  is  not  scriptural"  "  Not  having  put  on 
the  Lord  Jesus,  the  unbeliever  dies  in  his  sins ;  and 
where  Christ  is,  where  is  fulness  of  joy,  he  cannot 
come;  when  he  dies,  he  lies  down  in  sorrow;  he 
leaves  all  his  happiness  behind  him.  Death  and  the 
grave,  darkness  and  hell,  receive  him  ;  and  when  the 
trumpet,  destined  to  raise  the  dead,  shall  be  sounded, 
he  will  rise  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation  or  con- 
demnation." 

The  views  of  Chauncy,  as  we  have  seen  in  part, 
were  still  more  decided.  "  Many  men  will  be  mise- 
rable in  the  next  state  of  existence,"  he  remarks  in  his 
book  on  '  Universal  Salvation,'  (p.  9,)  "  in  proportion 
to  the  moral  depravity  they  have  contracted  in  this." 
"  In  the  collective  sense,  (p.  307,)  they  will  be  tor- 
mented for  ages  of  ages ;  though  some  of  them  only 
should  be  tormented  through  the  whole  of  that  period ; 
the  rest  variously  as  to  time,  in  proportion  to  their 
deserts." 

Even  the  great  exploder,  Hosea  Ballou,  had  preach- 
ed more  than  twenty-five  years,  before  he  "  was  fully 
satisfied  that  the  Bible  taught  no  punishment  in  the  fu- 
ture world."  In  a  letter  to  the  author  of  the  '  Modern 


NO  PUNISHMENT  AFTER  DEATH.  79 

Halloa's  former  views.  K>  r. -nt  discovery. 

History,'  he  says,  (p.  437,)  "  Respecting  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  state  of  retribution,  there  was,  in  my  youth, 
but  little  said.  Universalists  having  obtained  satisfac- 
tion that  none  of  the  human  race  would  suffer  endless 
punishment,  though  they  had  sufficient  reason  to  rejoice 
with  exceeding  joy,  and  to  glory  in  the  mercy  of  God. 
/  never  made  the  question  a  subject  of  close  investigation 
until  lately."  In  the  preface  to  his  work  on  *  Future 
Retribution,'  first  published  in  1834,  he  tells  us,  (p.  8,) 
that  he  renounced  "  nearly  eighteen  years  ago,  the 
doctrine  of  punishment  in  the  future  state." 

Since  that  eventful  period,  both  he  and  his  disciples 
teach,  that 

VI.    SlN  IS  PUNISHED  ONLY  IN  THIS  LIFE. 

Modern  Universalists  have  thus  made  rapid  strides  in 
regard  to  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  Their 
predecessors  had  no  idea,  that  the  Bible  would  warrant 
them  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  punishment  in  another 
state ;  or  if  they  had  any  such  idea,  they  seem  not  to 
have  thought  that  they  could  make  the  world  believe, 
that  all  suffering  would  end  with  death.  Nay,  at  the 
commencement  of  this  century,  and  for  15  years  after- 
wards, it  is  not  known  that  any  man  professing  to  be, 
and  received  by  the  people  as  a  Christian  minister,  had 
the  boldness  to  avow,  that  man  had  nothing  to  fear  be- 
yond the  grave — that  all  suffering  would  end  with  this 
mortal  life. 
Let  it,  then,  be  remembered,  that  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  NO 

PUNISHMENT  AFTER  DEATH  IS  NOT  YET  TWENTY-FIVE  YEARS 


80  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Not  25  years  old.  Generally  received. 

OLD.  An  old  book  may  perhaps  be  found,  in  which 
this  doctrine  is  expressed.  And  Mr.  Whittemore  of 
Boston  professes,  after,  I  suppose,  a  very  close  scrutiny, 
to  have  found  one  in  the  library  of  Harvard  University, 
among  the  scores  of  thousands  there,  that  taught  this 
doctrine  more  than  180  years  ago.  If  Mr.  Richardson, 
to  whom  he  refers  as  the  author  of  that  book,  did  mean 
to  teach  such  a  doctrine,  (and  this  has  been  denied,) 
it  argues  but  little  for  its  reasonableness,  that  it  should 
have  slept  more  than  a  century  and  a  half  from  its  first 
avowal,  until  Mr.  Ballou  brought  the  dead  to  life 
again.  But,  whether  it  is  contained  in  Mr.  Richard- 
son's book  or  not,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  doctrine 
was  incorporated  into  any  creed  called  Christian,  until 
its  adoption  by  Mr.  Ballou  and  his  disciples  in  1816-18. 
Previous  to  that  period,  American  Universalists  were 
all  Restorationists.  But  so  fully  were  they  prepared 
for  these  new  views,  and  so  eager  were  they  to  em- 
brace them,  that  in  a  few  years  the  new  doctrine  was 
almost  universally  received  into  the  order.  And  now 
almost  every  Universalist  preacher  can  sneer  at  the 
idea  of  "  Hell  and  Damnation." 
•Hr  In  1829,  the  results  of  an  extended  correspondence, 
by  the  author  of  the  '  Modern  History,'  showed,  that  a 
majority  of  the  denomination  openly  avowed  their  be- 
lief in  no  punishment  after  death,  while  a  large  part  of 
the  remainder  "  would  not  affirm  positively,  as  their 
settled  belief,  that  there  will  or  will  not  be  punishment 
hereafter."  In  1834,  Mr.  Ballou  maintained,  "  that 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  punishment  is  generally 


NO  PUNISHMENT  AFTER  DEATH.  S 1 

A  Schism.  Dlecuwion  avoided. 

disbelieved  by  Universalists  of  our  connection"  ('  Fut. 
Retrib.'  p.  10.) 

To  understand  this  last  remark,  it  is  proper  to  state 
that  so  generally  was  the  idea  of  retribution  in  a  future 
state  discarded  by  the  whole  sect,  that  Restorationists 
began  to  be  a  very  small  minority.  And  those  who 
were  left,  alarmed  at  these  inroads,  determined  in  1832 
to  withdraw  from  the  connection,  and  form  one  of 
their  own. 

This  last  step,  or  some  other  demonstration  of  pub- 
lic feeling,  seems  rather  to  have  alarmed  the  great  re- 
mainder. It  arrayed  against  them  a  band  of  men, 
fully  acquainted  with  their  views,  and  prepared  to  com- 
bat successfully  their  darling  dogma.  And  some  of  the 
most  powerful  attacks,  that  have  been  made  upon  their 
most  glaring  errors,  have  come  from  this  quarter.  Lat- 
terly, therefore,  they  have  very  wisely  avoided  contro- 
versy on  the  subject  of  a  limited  future  punishment. 
Those  of  them,  who  are  ever  ready  to  debate  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  miser}',  are  utterly  averse  to  enter  on  a 
discussion  of  the  simple  question  of  punishment  after 
death.  They  insist  upon  it,  that  this  is  a  question  to 
be  settled  among  themselves-  We  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it !  All  that  we  have  to  do  is  to  take  care  of  the 
"  horrid  dogma"  of  endless  torments.  "  Let  them," 
says  the  '  Trumpet,'  (XIII.  102,)  "  settle  the  question  of 
endless  misery  ;  and  Universalists  will  settle  the  matter 
of  future  limited  punishment  among  themselves  without 
any  foreign  help."  It  is  surely  very  kind  of  them  to 
take  this  labor  off  from  our  hands ! 


82 


UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


The  peopled  favorite.  Adroit  management. 

But  how  do  they  "  settle  this  matter  among  them- 
selves ?"  Verily  by  suffering  it  to  sleep  almost  undis- 
turbed. Those  who  profess  to  believe  in  no  future  pun- 
ishment are  often  bold  to  preach  it.  This  is  the  favor- 
ite doctrine  of  their  people.  Very  few  of  their  societies 
will  endure  any  other.  Again  and  again  they  have 
said,  c  if  our  minister  should  preach  any  other  we  would 
leave  him  at  once.9  Hence  many  of  their  preachers, 
who  cannot  deny  that  the  Bible  teaches  that  there  will 
be  punishment  after  death,  and  secretly,  or,  in  private 
circles,  admit  it,  dare  not  openly  avow  it,  lest  they  should 
be  abandoned  by  their  disciples.  They  speak,  there- 
fore, very  cautiously,  whenever  they  approach  this  de- 
bateable  topic. 

In  his  '  Discussion'  with  Dr.  Ely,  Mr.  Thomas,  though 
he  admitted  his  belief  in  the  doctrine,  that  "  the  Bible 
furnishes  no  evidence  of  a  punishment  beyond  the  pres- 
ent life,5'  (p.  18,)  when  he  found  it  necessary  in  one 
instance  to  consider  a  passage  having  a  bearing  on  this 
point,  evidently  manifested  his  unwillingness  to  enter 
upon  a  full  discussion  of  this  question,  and  says,  (p.  69,) 
"Allow  me  to  observe  that  the  question  is,  simply,  '  Is 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  taught  in  the  Bi- 
ble V  '  Mr.  Sawyer  devotes  four  of  his  (  Letters  to 
Remington,'  to  an  examination  of  the  nine  arguments 
advanced  by  the  latter  in  favor  of  future  punishment, 
and  yet  manages  so  adroitly  as  to  keep  the  reader  per- 
fectly in  the  dark  as  to  his  own  views  on  the  subject. 
"  Future  punishment,"  he  says,  (p.  53,)  may  be  true, 
but  I  do  not  believe  you  have  proved  it."  And  at  the 


NO  PUNISHMENT  AFTER  DEATH.  83 

Concealment.  Evasion. 

close  of  this  examination,  he  says,  (p.  80,)  "  I  did  not 
commence  this  review  of  your  arguments  in  favor  of 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  because  I  wished  to 
deny  that  doctrine  ;  nor  because  it  was  necessary  to 
deny  it,  in  order  to  sustain  Universalism." 

Mr.  Sawyer  is  evidently  unwilling  to  have  it  under- 
stood that  the  doctrine  of  no  future  punishment  is  com- 
mon among  Universalists.  Speaking  of  an  opponent, 
he  says,  ('  Union,'  Vol.  VI.  No.  2,)—"  The  writer  as- 
sumes that  the  doctrine  of  no  future  punishment  has 
been  the  "  common  doctrine"  of  Universalists.  This  is 
not  true.  It  was  never  our  common  doctrine.  The 
denomination  has  always  been  made  up  of  believers  in 
future  and  no  future  punishment ;  and  it  is  so  still." 
Again,  he  says,  (No.  3.)  "  the  only  question  to  be  dis- 
cussed between  Mr.  J.  and  myself,  is  that  of  the  strict 
eternity  of  punishment.  If  he  can  prove  this  at  all,  he 
can  prove  it  directly,  and  without  going  through  the 
beaten  path  of  seeking  it  in  future  punishment."  This 
path  he  evidently  intends  not  to  pursue  himself. 

In  the  year  1833,  Mr.  Braman,  of  Danvers,  Mass., 
proposed  to  Mr.  Whittemore,  of  Boston,  at  the  instiga- 
tion of  the  latter,  to  enter  into  a  pulpit-discussion  of 
Universalism ;  and,  that  the  subject  of  discussion  should 
"  be  divided  into  two  propositions  ;  viz.;  first,  Will  any 
of  the  human  race  be  punished  after  death  ? — and  second, 
Is  this  punishment  eternal  ?"  Mr.  W.  could  not  by 
any  means  be  brought  to  discuss  the  former  of  these 
questions,  and  replied,  "  The  question  for  discussion 
must  be  the  one  I  proposed — Is  the  doctrine  of  endless 


84  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Gross  assumption.  Criminal  indifference. 

misery  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?"  "  Nothing 
else  can  be  intruded  into  this  discussion  by  my  consent." 
"  If  you  will  accede  to  these  conditions,  well. — If  not, 
nothing  further  need  be  said  about  the  discussion." — 
(( Danvers'  Discussion,'  pp.  8,  10,  17.) 

It  appears,  thus,  to  be  a  settled  point  among  them, 
that  the  only  controversy  between  them  and  us,  and 
the  only  one  into  which  they  will  enter,  is,  whether  fu- 
ture punishment  be  strictly  endless  or  not.  To  such 
a  statement  of  our  differences  we  can  never  assent.  By 
the  showing  of  their  own  writers,  (see  page  23,)"the  dif- 
ference between  us  is  "  heaven-wide,"  and  we  cannot 
consent,  that  they  should  any  longer  blind  the  eyes  of 
the  people,  as  some  of  them  have  done,  with  such  gross 
assumptions. 

The  indifference,  which  they  affect  to  feel  in  regard 
to  a  future  limited  punishment,  is  wrorthy  of  distinct 
mention ;  and  the  coolness  with  which  they  regard  the 
settlement  of  the  question,  of  the  utmost  reprobation. 
Many  of  them  believe  that  their  readers  will  endure  in- 
describable wretchedness  for,  perhaps,  thousands  of 
years ;  and  yet  never  warn  them  to  escape,  do  not 
even  announce  to  them  the  fact,  and  affect  to  treat  it 
as  a  matter  of  little  consequence.  Mr.  Thomas,  after 
stating  in  his  '  Discussion'  that  the  question  of  "  our  fi- 
nal destiny  is  unquestionably  the  most  important,"  ad- 
vances the  idea  (p.  26,)  that  his  readers  "  feel  compara- 
tively little  interest  in  minor  points  of  theology  ;"  and 
one  of  these  points  to  which  he  refers  is  the  condition 
of  man  in  "  the  intermediate  state."  Mr.  Whittemore 


NO  PUNISHMENT  AFTER  DEATH.  86 

Mere  trash.  Criminal  ignorance. 

assures  us,  (*  Mod.  His.'  p.  434,)  that  "  the  doctrine  of 
a  limitedfuture  punishment,  as  a  distinct  question,  has 
never  excited  a  very  general  interest."  Mr.  Skinner, 
of  Utica,  having  occupied  about  three-eighths  of  the 
36th  No.  of  the  7th  Vol.  of  the  «  Mag.  and  Adv.'  with 
a  discussion  on  this  subject,  says,  (p.  287,)  that  these 
articles  "  occupy  more  room  than  we  ever  have  at  one 
time  [allowed,]  or  probably  ever  shall,  at  any  one  future 
time,  allow  to  this  subject.  We  have  generally,  for 
reasons  that  must  appear  obvious  to  our  readers,  avoid- 
ed the  direct  discussion  of  this  subject  to  any  consider- 
able extent."  And  to  show  how  much  better  he  felt 
by  unburdening  his  mind,  he  refers  to  the  anecdote  of  a 
servant  of  a  New-England  divine,  who,  to  the  remark 
of  his  master  who  had  been  quite  ill  on  the  Sabbath 
morning,  that  he  felt  much  better  for  preaching,  re- 
plied— '  Yes,  Massa !  me  tink  you  feel  great  deal  bet- 
ter after  gittin  so  much  trash  off  your  'tomach."  In 
other  words,  the  question  of  future  punishment  is  MERE 
TRASH! 

Much  in  the  same  way  Mr.  Williamson  disposes  of 
the  matter  in  his  *  Exposition,'  (pp.  97, 8.)"  In  favor  of 
future  punishment  there  are  some  plausible  arguments, 
which  may  be  drawn  from  reason  and  analogy ;  and  as 
a  philosophical  speculation,  I  would  not  strongly  object 
to  that  doctrine."  "  But  on  this  point,  I  will  not  dwell, 
for  it  is  one  of  minor  importance." 

Now  how  can  Universalist  societies  allow  themselves 
to  remain  ignorant  of  the  views  of  their  pastors  respect- 
ing a  future  state  ?  If  there  be  punishment  after  death, 
8 


86-  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Balfour's  admissions.  Appeal  to  their  preachers. 

and  until  the  resurection,  ought  not  the  people  to  know 
it  ?  to  demand  of  their  teachers  either  a  confirmation 
or  denial  of  it  ?  "  Even  allowing  this  little  eternity  of 
punishment  is  at  last  to  end,  the  thought  is  enough  to 
take  sleep  from  our  eyes,  lead  us  to  weeping  and  wail- 
ing ;  and  to  warn  each  other,  lest  we  come  to  this  place 
of  torment."  So  says  Mr.  Balfour,  on  supposition  of  a 
limited  future  punishment,  and  declares  that  then,  "  a 
new  era  ought  to  commence  among  Universalists,  in 
their  zeal  and  exertions  for  the  salvation  of  immortal 
souls.  No  sect  in  the  community  acts  so  inconsistently 
as  they  do,  if  this  opinion  is  true.  What  domestic  or, 
foreign  missions  are  they  engaged  in  for  the  salvation 
of  men's  immortal  souls?  But  x  why  not  engage  in 
them  with  great  zeal,  unless  some  thousand  years  pun- 
ishment in  hell  is  all  a  farce  ?  Religion  out  of  the 
question,  common  humanity  says — save  them  from  so 
many  years  mental  misery,  if  money,  zeal,  and  exertion 
can  affect  it  1"  (<  Letters,'  p.  11.) 

If  my  voice  could  reach  such  preachers,  I  would  ask 
them, — On  what  principle  of  "  common  humanity"  do 
you  justify  your  silence  on  this  subject,  before  your 
congregations  1  Do  you  certainly  know  that  their  suf- 
ferings for  sin  are  to  continue  after  death  ?  And  why, 
in  the  name  of  God,  I  ask,  do  you  not  tell  them  so  ? 
Why  will  you  suffer  them  to  leave  the  world  blinded 
and  deluded  1  If,  on  the  other  hand,  you  cannot  come 
to  a  conclusion  about  it  for  yourselves,  why  not  inform 
them  that  the  probabilities,  that  they  will  suffer  for 
their  sins  after  death,  are  so  great,  that,  with  all  your 


NO  PUNISHMENT  AFTER  DEATH.  87 

Their  preachers  warm  d  Appeal  to  the  people. 

prepossessions  against  such  a  doctrine,  you  cannot  cer- 
tainly say  that  there  will  be  no  such  punishment  ?  Mr. 
Thomas  asks,  (<  Discussion,'  p.  286,)  "  Is  it  strange 
that  the  inspired  servants  of  the  Most  High  God  should 
devote  their  lives  and  all  their  energies  to  the  promo- 
tion of  human  happiness  in  the  earth  ?"  But,  I  ask, 
1  Is  it  not  both  strange  and  cruel  for  you  to  see  your 
fellow-men  exposed  to  sufferings  in  another  state  that 
may  last  for  thousands  of  years,  and  yet  not  even  warn 
them  V  They  appeal  to  your  silence  as  proof  that 
there  is  no  such  punishment.  They  and  we  have  a 
right  to  demand  of  you,  who  presume  to  be  so  much 
wiser  than  all  others  on  the  subject  of  a  future  state,  to 
be  no  longer  non-committal  in  relation  to  a  matter  that 
so  deeply  affects  our  future  well-being.  Settle  this 
question  speedily.  No  longer  exclude  it  from  the  col- 
umns of  your  reviews  and  weekly  prints.  Give  your 
views  of  it  from  the  pulpit.  Let  the  people  know  your 
sentiments  without  the  least  concealment.  "If  thou 
dost  not  speak  to  warn  the  wicked  from  his  way,  that 
wicked  man  shall  die  in  his  iniquity,  but  his  blood  will 
I  require  at  thine  hand." 

To  the  people  I  would  say,  Do  not  be  sure  that  you 
will  not  suffer  for  your  sins  after  death.  The  doctrine, 
which  you  have  embraced  so  eagerly,  is  not  yet  twen- 
ty-five years  old.  It  has  not  even  the  recommenda- 
tion of  antiquity.  It  is  too  slender  a  reed  to  lean  upon. 
It  may  pierce  you  through  with  many  sorrows.  At  all 
events,  it  will  be  time  enough  for  you  to  receive  the 
doctrine,  when  your  ministers  have  embraced  it  with 


UN1VERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


The  people  admonished. 

all  their  hearts.  In  the  meantime  a  dreadful  uncer- 
tainty must  afflict  you.  If  you  have  any  confidence  in 
your  own  clergy,  you  can  never  be  at  peace,  while  so 
many  of  them  are  either  in  doubt  of,  or  opposed  to,  the 
doctrine  of  no  punishment  after  death.  It  is  a  hazard- 
ous venture  to  stake  your  eternity  on  a  doctrine  denied 
by  all  the  Christian  world,  and  even  by  many  of  your 
own  authorized  expounders  of  scripture.  Wait  at  least 
before  you  believe  it,  until  I  shall  exhibit  to  you  some 
of  the  consequences,  into  which  those  of  your  teachers 
are  led  who  embrace  this  doctrine,  and  into  which  you 
must  follow  them,  if  you  would  be  consistent.  "/  speak 
as  to  wise  men  ;  judge  ye  what  I  say" 


CHAPTER    VII. 

SIN    CEASES    AT    DEATH. DEATH    NOT    THE 

FRUIT    OF    SIN. 

New  Rule  of  Faith — No  common  ground  in  controversy — Sin 
ceases  at  death — Mankind  naturally  mortal — Yet  they  in- 
terpret most  of  the  threatenings  of  the  Bible,  of  natural 
death — Inconsistency — Scripture-account  of  the  matter. 

"  Aut  beatus,  aut  nullus." — SENECA. 

Take  which  you  please,  'tis  all  the  same  to  us — 
BLISS,  or  EXTINCTION  :  for  our  creed  runs  thus  : — 
All  are  receiv'd  to  endless  bliss  at  death, 
Or  lose  their  being  with  their  mortal  breath. 

THE  Bible  must,  at  all  events,  be  so  interpreted  as  to 
exclude  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  or  it  will  not 
please  a  Universalist.  He  has  determined  that  so  it 
must  be ;  and  who  can  say  him — '  Nay  V  I  do  but 
advance  the  openly-avowed  purpose  of  their  great 
Rabbi.  Hosea  Ballou,  in  his  '  Lecture-Sermons,'  says, 
(p.  193,)  "  The  fact  is,  there  is  no  such  testimony  in 
the  Scriptures,  which  can,  with  the  least  degree  of 
fairness,  be  applied  to  a  state  of  never-ending  misery.' 
"  Moreover,  we  feel  it  to  be  a  duty  to  state,  that,  in 
room  of  straining  particular  passages,  which  speak  of 
the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  so  as  to  favor  the  idea 
of  unlimited  punishment,  we  should  feel  justified  in  re- 
straining any  passage,  could  such  be  found,  that  should 
8* 


90  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Bible  not  the  rule  of  faith.  Controversy  precluded; 

seem  to  favor  an  opinion,  so  dishonorable  to  God,  and  so 
revolting  to  our  best  feelings." 

Let  it  never  be  said,  after  this,  that  the  Bible  is  the 
Universalist's  Rule  of  Faith.  Every  thing  in  and  out 
of  the  Bible  must  be  made  to  bend  to  his  own  c  FEEL- 
INGS.' He  has  already  decided  the  question,  before  he 
opens  that  blessed  book.  And,  if  he  finds  there  any 
thing  that  does  not  accord  with  that  decision,  it  must 
be  warped,  and  twisted,  and  wrested,  and  compressed, 
or  spirited  away,  so  as  to  suit  the  £  feelings'  of  not  the 
learner,  but,  the  judge.  I  need  not  say,  that  all  the 
writings  of  these  learned  divines  are  a  perfect  illustra- 
tion of  this  process.  If  any  one  wishes  to  amuse  him- 
self with  some  rare  specimens  of  this  art,  (if  amuse- 
ment can  be  found  in  such  woful  exhibitions,)  let  him 
read  Ballou's  '  Notes  on  the  Parables,'  or  Whittemore's 
<  Notes  and  Illustrations  of  the  Parables,'  or  c  The 
Plain  Guide  to  Universalism.' 

Thus  are  they  armed  at  all  points.  They  will  hold 
no  argument  respecting  a  finite  punishment,  with  those 
who  believe  that  punishment  is  to  be  infinite.  And  when 
we  attempt  to  prove  it  infinite,  and  make  our  appeal  to 
the  Bible,  they  are  determined  to  restrain  any  and 
every  passage  that  seems  to  favor  such  an  opinion. 
Of  what  use  then  is  it  to  enter  into  controversy  with 
them  on  such  terms  ?  It  is  a  complete  waste  of  words. 
Let  the  world  know  the  length  and  breadth  of  their 
departures  from  the  faith,  and  let  them  judge  whether 
such  men  are  to  be  entrusted  as  expounders  and  de- 
fenders of  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 


SIN  CEASES  AT  DEATH.  91 

An  argument  sought.  Sin  limited  to  tliin  life. 

Those  of  them,  who  believe  that  punishment  ceases 
at  death,  are  determined  that  the  Bible  shall  sustain 
their  views  in  the  manner  already  stated.  They  must 
have  it  all  their  own  way  in  the  other  world,  as  well  as 
in  this.  Having  found  that  they  could  dispense  with 
endless  punishment,  they  learned,  a  few  years  since, 
that  they  could  do  without  any  punishment  at  all  be- 
yond the  grave ;  that  it  was  by  far  the  most  pleasant 
and  comfortable  doctrine,  to  believe  that  all  their  sor- 
rows would  cease  at  death.  They  therefore  set  them- 
selves to  work  to  prove  it,  or,  as  their  manner  is,  to 
deny  that  the  contrary  can  be  proved. 

Some  show  of  argument  was  necessary  in  order  to 
establish  the  wavering.  This,  however,  was  not  so 
easily  found.  Some  novel  principles  must,  in  such  an 
emergency,  be  devised,  that  would  serve  the  purpose. 
Reasoning  from  the  premises  laid  down  by  Mr.  Ballou, 
and  adopted  so  generally,  that  sin  is  the  work  of  the 
flesh,  or  man's  animal  nature  as  it  exists  in  this  life,  it 
was  easy  to  see  that 

VII.  SIN  CEASES  WITH  THE  DEATH  OF  THE  BODY. 

If  man  ceases  to  sin,  then,  say  they,  he  ceases  to 
sutler ;  therefore,  there  is  no  punishment  in  a  future 
state.  The  very  thing  that  was  to  be  proved !  It  will 
not  answer,  to  allow  that  men  have  any  thing  to  do 
with  sin  after  the  destruction  of  the  body.  This, 
therefore,  is  a  cardinal  point,  and  much  they  labor  to 
establish  it.  The  doctrine  is  thus  stated  by  Mr.  Le 
Fevre,  in  the  <  Gospel  Anchor/  (II.  289  ;)  "  Man's 


92  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  sinner  as  righteous  as  the  saint  after  death. 

sins,  like  himself,  are  of  a  mundane  or  earthly  charac- 
ter. Man  dies,  and  with  him  die  all  those  temptations 
which  have  led  him  astray  from  the  path  of  duty,  and 
constituted  him  while  here  a  wicked  man.  When  he 
is  raised  from  the  state  of  death,  he  will  be  raised  im- 
mortal and  incorruptible."  Thus  he  attempts  to  show 
that  a  man's  wickedness — all  that  '  constituted  him  a 
wicked  man' — ceases  at  death.  After  that,  he  is  just 
as  righteous  as  the  holiest  saint  that  ever  walked  the 
earth.  His  wickedness  being  limited  to  this  world, 
how,  then,  can  it  be  punished  in  another  ? 

These  views  are,  doubtless,  derived  from  Mr.  Bal- 
lou's  on  the  '  Atonement.'  In  that  work,  he  says, 
(p.  7,)  that  "  in  order  to  prove  that  a  man  will  be 
miserable,  after  this  mortal  life  is  ended,  it  must  first 
be  proved  that  he  will  sin  in  the  next  state  of  exist- 
ence." This  he  argues  from  the  supposition,  (p.  6,) 
"  that  a  perpetuity  of  punishment  must  be  connected 
with  an  equal  continuance  of  sin,"  and  (p.  7,)  "  that 
as  long  as  men  sin,  they  will  be  miserable,  be  that  time 
longer  or  shorter  :  and  that  as  soon  as  they  cease  from 
sin,  they  begin  to  experience  divine  enjoyment."  Just 
as  if  it  was  necessary  for  a  murderer  to  continue  to 
commit  murder  daily  and  hourly  in  order  to  be  wretch- 
ed ;  and  as  if  the  remembrance  of  one  murderous  act 
was  not  enough  to  embitter  the  whole  future  life  !  In 
the  preface  to  the  fifth  edition  of  the  same  work,  he 
informs  us,  that,  when  he  published  the  first  edition,  he 
was  not  "  so  fully  satisfied,  that  all  which  the  Scrip- 
tures say  about  sin,  and  the  punishment  of  it,  relates 


SIN   CEASES   AT   DEATH.  93 

Hiii  impowiWe  after  death.  ;,.,.-«  with  tin  lusts  of  iiu-  il.  -h. 

solely  to  this  mortal  state,  as  he  now  is."  This,  of 
course,  was  after  he  had  made  the  wonderful  discovery 
of  no  future  punishment. 

In  a  sermon  on  the  second  death,  from  Rev.  xxi.  8, 
he  says,  ('  Lect.  Sermons,'  p.  217,)  "Another  very 
great  inconsistency  in  the  common  use  of  our  text  is, 
that  it  supposes  that  after  people  shall  have  ceased  from 
all  the  sins  which  are  enumerated  in  the  text,  and  are 
in  a  constitution  of  existence  in  which  no  such  crimes  can 
ever  be  committed,  they  are  then  and  there  to  be  tor- 
mented for  what  they  did  in  this  world."  "  What 
reason,  then,  is  there  in  supposing  that,  in  a  world  where 
no  crime  can  ever  be  committed,  crimes  will  be  eter- 
nally punished  ?"  "  What  is  this  punishment  for  in 
the  eternal  world,  in  which  no  one  (?)  pretends  that  any 
crime  can  ever  be  committed  ?"  Again,  "  The  hearer 
is  cautioned  (p.  370,)  against  supposing  that  we  allow 
that  the  next  state  will  be  subject  to  sickness,  or  to 
sin  ;  we  distinctly  say  that  the  evidence  of  this  is  want- 
ing both  in  scripture  and  reason"- 

A  writer  in  the  '  Universalist  Expositor,'  for  Sept 
1838,  is  still  more  explicit.  "  We  have  seen,  (p.  303,) 
that  all  the  sin  that  mankind  commit,  proceeds  from 
the  unnatural  activity,  the  unrestrained  indulgence,  of 
the  propensities  and  appetites  pertaining  to  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  which  our  bodies  are  composed  ;  and  that 
the  soul  or  mind  properly  speaking,  never  is  the  source 
of  iniquity,  and,  so  far  as  it  is  enlightened,  never  con- 
sents to  it.  Now,  if  the  body,  with  all  its  appetites 
and  propensities,  perishes  in  its  mother-earth,  as  the 


94  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Docs  the  flesh  think  1  Spiritual  beings  cannot  sin. 

Scriptures  emphatically  declare,  is  it  not  very  evident, 
that  sin  cannot  exist  beyond  the  death  of  this  body  and 
the  extinction  of  its  lusts  ?"  "  Can  sin  continue  in 
being  after  the  annihilation  of  those  passions  which 
are  its  sole  and  only  source  ?"  "  Sole  and  only !" 
One  sole  is  not  strong  enough :  so  he  must  have  two, 
lest,  after  all,  his  reader  should  suspect,  that  as  a  man 
"  THINKETH  in  his  hearty  so  is  he."  Does  the  flesh 
think  1  Who  is  it  that  tells  us,  that  «  unto  them  that 
are  defiled  and  unbelieving  is  nothing  pure,  but  even 
their  mind  and  conscience  is  defiled  ?" — and  of  some, 
"  that  were  alienated  and  enemies  in  their  mind  by 
wicked  works  ?"  Is  flesh  identical  with  mind  and  con- 
science ?  Or  are  the  latter  destroyed  with  the  former  ? 
But  I  must  not  press  this  question  yet. 

One  more  extract  will  suffice  on  this  point.  Mr. 
Williamson  says,  ('  Exposition,'  p.  18,)  "  We  believe," 
(and  here  he  speaks  for  the  denomination)  "  that  the 
lusts  of  the  flesh,  and  all  the  evil  passions  that  distract 
and  torment  man  on  earth,"  (poor  innocent  sufferer !) 
"  will  be  left  in  the  earth  where  they  originated)  that 
God  will  not  transplant  them  to  another  world  to  nou- 
rish them  there." 

It  is  thus  more  than  intimated,  that  a  mere  spiritual 
being  cannot  sin.  So  they  would  have  us  believe, 
whether  they  teach  it  in  so  many  words  or  not.  But, 
"  hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est ;"  this  is  a  work  of  painful  toil. 
They  can  scarcely  convince  themselves  of  its  truth. 
How  then  can  they  hope  to  succeed  with  others  ?  The 
world  has  too  long  been  taught  in  the  school  of  expe- 


DEATH   NOT    THE    FRUIT   OF    SIN.  95 

Another  subterfuge  The  body  originally  mortal. 

rience,  not  to  know  that  sin  is  the  product  of  mind,  and 
only  of  mind — that  flesh  and  blood,  or  mere  animal 
functions,  however  much  they  may  serve  as  occasions 
for  sin,  never  can  themselves  sin ; — sin  cannot  be  pre- 
dicated of  a  finger,  tooth,  or  toe ;  never  of  the  animal 
juices,  or  secretions ;  never  of  the  bile  or  gall ;  but 
only  of  "  the  mind,  spirit,  or  soul." 

What)  then,  is  to  be  done  ?  It  will  not  answer  to  let 
man  sin  after  death,  for  then  he  must  suffer,  and  the 
"  darling  doctrine"  of  no  punishment  after  death  comes 
to  nought.  But  when,  and  where,  was  a  Universalist 
ever  at  a  loss  for  a  subterfuge  ?  Imperturbable  to  the 
last,  he  hits  at  once  on  some  expedient,  and  then  sets 
his  wits  to  work,  to  make  the  Bible  foster  his  own 
bantling.  The  whole  difficulty  is  removed  by  the  dis- 
covery, that  the  pretensions  of  mankind  to  an  inherent 
immortality  are  all  wrong, — based  on  mistaken  notions 
of  human  nature,  and  unwarranted  by  Scripture. 

VIII. — MANKIND  ARE  NATURALLY  AND  ORIGINALLY  MORTAL. 
It  is  maintained  very  strenuously  by  this  sect,  that 
physical  death  is  not  the  fruit,  in  any  sense,  of  sin ; — 
that  man  would  have  died,  had  he  never  sinned  at  all, 
and  that,  when  he  dies  he  ceases  to  be,  as  far  as  all 
consciousness  is  concerned  ;  so  that  the  idea  of  his  sin- 
ning after  death,  and  previous  to  the  resurrection,  they 
regard  as  in  the  highest  degree  absurd.  This  theory, 
moreover,  answers  an  admirable  purpose,  in  the  argu- 
ment against  the  common  notion  of"  the  fall  of  man/' 
native  and  total  depravity,  and  some  other  similar  ideas 


96  UNIVERSALISM  AS   IT   IS. 

Mortality  natural.  Man's  death  not  because  of  Bin. 

of  the  ancients.  It  must  not,  therefore,  be  passed  over 
lightly. 

In  this  instance,  as  in  others,  Mr.  Ballou  is  entitled 
to  the  distinguished  honor  of  being  the  first  of  the 
order  to  discover  a  doctrine,  which  they  have  since 
turned  to  so  good  account.  "  God  saw  fit,"  he  informs 
us,  ('  Atonement,'  p.  35,)  "  in  his  plan  of  divine  wis- 
dom, to  make  the  creature  subject  to  vanity ;  to  give 
him  a  mortal  constitution."  Again,  (p.  59,)  "Men 
die  natural  deaths  because  they  are  naturally  mortal  y 
but  they  are  not  mortal  because  of  sin,  for  man  was 
mortal  before  he  sinned,  if  he  were  not,  he  never  could 
have  sinned."  "  Sin  cannot  be  said  to  be  the  cause  of 
natural  death,  any  more  than  of  natural  life."  In  the 
' Lecture-Sermons,'  we  are  told,  (p.  62,)  "that  the 
opinion  that  man  was  constituted  in  flesh  and  blood, 
first  a  perfectly  holy  being,  but  was  made  subject  to 
vanity  by  sin,  is  as  contrary  to  the  plain  declaration  of 
our  text,  as  it  is  repugnant  to  the  dictates  of  reason." 
A  pretty  compliment,  truly,  he  pays  to  the  reason  of 
all  the  Christian  world  who  have  differed  from  him, 
from  days  with  which  the  memory  of  man  runs  not 
parallel !  Hence,  he  says,  (p.  64,)  "  that  the  fact  is, 
we  have  no  authority  for  this  doctrine  which  is  called 
— '  the  fall.' ':  How  can  we  express  our  obligations 
Nfor  this  wonderful  discovery  ?  especially  since  he  tells 
us,  (p.  65,)  that  "  it  seems  impossible  to  avoid  this  con- 
clusion concerning  the  imperfect  state  of  man  in  the 
beginning." 

If  now  we  turn  to  other  authors  of  this  name,  we 


DEATH   NOT   THE   FRUIT   OF   SIN.  97 

Not  made  mortal  by  ein.  Adam  not  made  immortal. 

find  them  making  a  plentiful  use  of  Mr.  Ballou's  "  old 
notes  that  he  delivered  almost"  forty  years  ago.  Mr. 
Balfour,  in  his  *  Three  Essays,'  (p.  96,)  maintains  that 
"  to  say  an  immortal  being  became  mortal  by  sin,  is  a 
contradiction  in  terms ;  nor  is  it  intimated  that  the  en- 
trance of  sin  produced  such  a  change  among  mankind." 
Mr.  Skinner  of  Boston  remarks,  ('  Univ.  Dl.  and  Def.' 
p.  77,)  that  "  it  is  contrary  to  the  account  of  Moses,  to 
say,  that  a  change  was  produced  in  the  constitution  of 
Adam,  by  the  first  sin."  "  The  very  nature  of  the  hu- 
man constitution  shows,  that  it  was  not  designed  for  an 
endless  existence  on  earth."  "  Sin  does  not  make  us 
mortal ;  we  were  originally  constituted  mortal."  Mr. 
Sawyer  finds  fault  with  Mr.  Remington,  for  attributing 
to  him  ('  Letters,'  p.  42,)  the  assertion  "  that  temporal 
or  natural  death  constituted  a  part  of  the  penalty"  of 
sin ;  and  adds,  (p.  44,)  "  that  my  *  brethren  generally,' 
do  not  adopt  such  an  opinion,  your  friend  Mr.  Lee  would 
have  informed  you,  had  you  read  him  with  due  care. 
He  says — *  It  is  probably  generally  known  that  modern 
Universalists  deny  that  the  death  of  the  body  is  an 
effect  of  sin,  and  maintain  that  Adam  was  created 
mortal,  and  that  he  and  all  our  race  would  have  died, 
if  sin  had  never  entered  the  world.' " 

Similar  language  is  used  by  B.  Whittemore,  of  Bos- 
ton.— "  Reason  will  not  admit  ('  Gospel  Anchor,'  II.  p. 
385,)  that  all  mankind  were  rendered  liable  to  death 
by  the  fall.  Had  the  All-wise  God,  in  the  creation  of 
man,  designed  him  to  live  forever,  neither  the  fall  nor 
any  thing  else,  would  have  occasioned  his  death — no 
9 


UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS, 


Bible-threats  referred  to  natural  death.  Premature  death. 

power  in  the  universe  would  be  able  to  take  his  life. 
If  we  view  the  organic  powers  of  man,  we  shall  dis- 
cover that  they  were  composed  of  such  materials,  that 
in  the  very  nature  of  things,  they  must  wax  old  and 
decay — of  course  could  not  have  been  intended  as  the 
home  of  endless  life." 

Now  it  seems  very  strange,  that  while  these  writers 
so  positively  deny  that  natural  death  is  a  consequence 
of  sin,  they  so  frequently  maintain  that  the  threatenings 
of  the  Bible  refer  only  to  the  cessation  of  natural  life, 
thus  making  natural  death  the  greatest  punishment  to 
which  mankind  are  liable.  Mr.  Sawyer  admits  (c  Pe- 
nalty of  Sin,'  p.  14,)  that  "  a  premature,  violent,  and 
ignominious  death  inflicted  for  crime,  has  always  been 
regarded  both  by  God  and  man,  as  the  greatest  punish- 
ment that  mortals  can  suffer  ;"  and  asks — "  Who  can 
be  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know,  that  under  perhaps  every 
government  on  the  globe,  temporal  death  is  regarded  as 
the  severest  punishment  which  can  be  inflicted  ?"  And 
yet,  in  the  face  of  these  well-established  facts,  he  has 
the  boldness  to  deny,  that  natural  death  is  properly  a 
consequence  of,  or  punishment  for,  sin  !  Instances  of 
the  same  inconsistency  abound  in  the  writings  of  these 
renowned  reformers ! 

It  will  be  said,  perhaps,  that  these  admissions  relate 
to  c  premature'  death — to  the  shortening  of  a  man's 
life,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Antediluvians,  the  Sodomites, 
and  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem.  But  if  the  shortening  of  a 
man's  life  but  a  few  years  is  spoken  of  as  a  testimony  of 
the  divine  displeasure  for  sin,  how  much  more  must  we 


DEATH  NOT  THE  FRUIT  OF  SIN.          99 


Mortality  the  fruit  of  God's  anger.  Paul's  opinion. 

regard  that  as  a  consequence  of,  or  punishment  for,  sin, 
which  consists  in  cutting  down  human  life  from  a  dura- 
tion of  nearly  a  thousand  years  to  an  average  of  only 
about  thirty  ! — and  especially  in  making  man  mortal  at 
first,  debarring  him  from  immortality  on  earth,  and 
making  him  inevitably  subject  to  that  death  from  which 
his  whole  nature  instinctively  recoils  !  If  it  is  spoken 
of  as  a  mark  of  God's  anger,  that  he  should  consume 
a  few  hundreds,  or  thousands  at  most,  on  the  plains  of 
Sodom,  how  much  more  does  he  display  his  anger  in 
sweeping  away,  in  about  thirty  years,  nine  hundred  mil- 
lions "  as  with  a  flood  !"  In  Job,  (xxiv.  19,)  we  are 
told  "  drought  and  heat  consume  the  snow-waters  ;  so 
doth  the  grave  those  who  have  sinned."  And  after 
the  same  manner,  "  Moses,  the  man  of  God,"  whom 
these  writers  claim  as  with  them,  accounts  (Ps.  xc.  3, 
7,  8,  9,)  for  the  prevalence  of  natural  death  :  "  Thou 
turnest  man  to  destruction :  for  we  are  consumed  by 
thine  anger,  and  by  thy  wrath  are  we  troubled ;  thou 
hast  set  our  iniquities  before  thee,  our  secret  sins  in  the 
light  of  thy  countenance :  for  all  our  days  are  passed 
away  in  thy  wrath,  we  spend  our  years  as  a  tale  that  is 
told."  Man's  mortality  is  thus  attributed  to  the  anger 
of  God,  consequent  upon  the  iniquities  of  the  sinner. 

But  Paul  is  much  more  explicit,  and  seems  to  put 
the  matter  beyond  controversy.  To  the  Romans  he 
says,  (v.  12,)  "  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men."  That  death  in  this  last  clause  refers  to  the  body 
is  made  plain  by  what  he  says,  v.  14  :  "  Nevertheless 


100  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 


Death  the  fruit  of  Adam's  sin.  Bible  the  best  standard. 

death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them  that 
had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trangres- 
sion."  Still  more  apparent  is  his  meaning  in  1  Cor. 
xv.  21,  22  ;  "  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man 
came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead ;  for  as  in  Mam 
all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  The 
,  sense  of  the  word, c  death,'  in  this  passage,  no  Universal- 
ist  will  pretend  to  dispute.  They  all  mainiain  that  this 
passage  speaks  of  a  physical  resurrection.  The  Bible, 
therefore,  teaches  that,  had  not  man  have  sinned,  he 
would  not  have  been  mortal ;  natural  death  is  the  fruit 
of  sin.  Far  distant  be  the  day,  when  men  shall  forsake 
the  authority  of  Moses  and  Paul,  speaking  "  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  for  such  self-consti- 
tuted standards,  as  Ballou,  Balfour,  &  Co* 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL. 

What  becomes  of  man  at  death? — Poetic  effusions — Mind  not 
immortal'— Man  has  but  one  nature,  and  that  material  and 
mortal — Mr.  Bailouts  ignorance — Sketch  of  Mr.  Balfour 
— His  exegetical  labors — Man  has  no  immortal  soul,  exe~ 
gettcally  considered — These  views  generally  received — 
Source^  of  the  doctrine — Materialism — Death  the  great 
Savior. 

"  One  doubt 

Pursues  me  stifl,  lest  all  I  cannot  die  ; 
Lest  that  pure  breadi  of  life,  the  spir't  of  man 
Which  God  inspir'd,  cannot  together  perish 
With  this  corporeal  clod ;  then,  in  the  grave, 
Or  in  some  other  dismal  place,  who  knows 
But  I  shall  die  a  living  death  ?     O  thought 
Horrid  if  true  !     Yet  why  ?     It  was  but  breath 
Of  life  that  sinn'd  ;   what  dies  but  what  had  lift 
And  sin  ?     The  body  properly  hath  neither, 
ALL  OF  ME  THEN  SHALL  DIE  !  let  this  appease 
The  doubt,  since  human  reach  no  further  knows." 

MILTON. 

How  shall  we  dispose  of  man  after  death  and  until 
the  resurrection  ?  Where  is  his  resting-place  ?  Does 
he  go  immediately  to  ^eaven  when  he  ceases  from 
earth,  or  what  is  done  with  him  ?  That  he  goes  into 
a  place  of  punishment,  or  of  suffering,  is  either  posi- 
tively denied,  or  greatly  questioned,  by  the  expounders 
*/ 


102  UNIVERSAL™  AS  IT  is. 

State  of  the  dead.  Fictions  of  poetry. 

of  Universalism.  They  seem  determined  that  their  suf- 
ferings shall  end  with  mortal  life.  But,  after  all,  is  it 
not  possible  that,  if  man  continues  to  exist,  he  may  con- 
tinue to  sin  ?  And  if  to  sin,  then  must  he  continue  to 
suffer.  Now,  as  it  cannot  be  proved  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  sin  in  another  state  of  existence,  it  becomes  ne- 
cessary to  deprive  man  of  all  conscious  existence  at  the 
moment  of  death,  and  until  the  resurrection. 

A  silence,  like  that  of  the  grave,  is  observed  by  the 
greater  part  of  Universalist  writers  respecting  the  state 
of  the  dead.  Now  and  then  a  sentiment  appears  in  the 
dying  sayings  of  some  of  their  number,  and  in  their 
fugitive  poetry,  which  would  seem  to  imply  that  the 
departed  are  happy  in  heaven.  A  correspondent  of  the 
4  Gospel  Anchor,'  for  example  asks,  (II.  166,) 

"  How  is  the  spirit  prone  to  break  its  chains. 
And  struggle  out  beyond  its  narrow  bounds ! 
Why  is  it  thus  ?     If  wedded  to  the  dust, 
And  of  the  dust  a  part,  and  doom'd  to  die 
And  with  the  body  filter  through  the  earth, — • 
Why,  where,  or  whence  derives  its  other  thoughts  ? 
Say,  does  the  body  ask  for  wings  ?  .  . .  . 
No  !   'tis  the  soul — th'  immortal  part — the  mind, 
Which,  not  of  earth,  delights  not  in  it." 

The  following  from  a  contributor  to  the  ( Universalist 
Union' is  of  the  same  import.  (IV.  308:) 

"  O  grave  !  terrific  thou  to  human  pride  ; 

Yet  o'er  the  spirit  *s  light,  thou'st  no  control ; 
However  near  is  flesh  to  earth  allied, 

Thy  bars,  O  death  !  cannot  confine  the  soul !" 


MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL.  103 

The  dying  Universalist.  Mind  perishes  with  the  body. 

Again  (p.  124,)  another  says, 

••  When  the  dust  sinks  to  dust, 

Then  shall  we  come, 
Where  we  free  shall  ever  be, 

In  Heaven  our  home." 

Such  poetic  effusions  are  not  uncommon.  Now  and 
then,  too,  the  experience  of  some  dying  Universalist  is 
given,  in  which  he  is  represented  as  longing  for  death, 
that  he  may  fly  away  to  -  Heaven,  and  be  happy  there, 
while  his  body  is  mouldering  to  dust. 

But  the  creed  of  the  Universalist  recognizes  no  such 
hope.  And,  sometimes,  the  editor,  who  admits  such 
articles  into  his  columns  is  honest  enough  to  avow  it. 
In  the  case  of  the  article,  quoted  above  from  the  *  Gos- 
pel Anchor,'  Mr.  Le  Fevre,  one  of  the  editors,  first  re- 
marks, (p.  244,)  "  We  do  not  hold  ourselves  responsible 
for  the  sentiments  of  our  correspondents,  or  for  extracts 
which  we  may  select,  especially  in  poetical  produc- 
tions !" — But  we  may  ask,  "  if  the  trumpet  give  an  un- 
certain sound,  who  shall  prepare  himself  to  the  battle?" 
He  then  proceeds  to  say — "  We  have  no  reason  to 
believe  in  the  immortality  of  the  mind.  As  far  as  facts 
weigh  any  thing  in  the  argument,  they  all  stand  oppos- 
ed to  such  an  hypothesis."  "  We  are  irresistibly  led  to 
believe  that  mind  depends  on  organization,  and  where 
that  is  impaired,  the  mental  capacity  is  destroyed.  Con- 
sequently in  the  article  of  death,  we  should  say,  that  the 
mind  perishes  with  the  body.  Whether  the  scriptures 
teach  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  a  question  perhaps 


104  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Immortality  of  the  soul  denied.  Ballou's  ignorance. 

not  so  easily  decided."  "  We  have  given  considerable 
attention  to  this  subject,  and  we  do  not  hesitate  to  say, 
that  in  our  humble  opinion  the  testimony  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  soul's  immortality  appears  to  preponder- 
ate." 

This  is  the  opinion  not  of  one  individual  alone.  "  The 
junior  editor,  (Mr.  Williamson,  now  of  New  York,) 
concurs  with  us  in  these  sentiments."  And  these  stand 
not  alone.  There  are  others,  "  who  have  boldly  ac- 
knowledged their  disbelief  of  the  soul's  immortality." 
But  "  there  has  been  exhibited  by  many  editors  an  un- 
willingness to  approach  this  subject ;"  because  those, 
who  have  denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  "  have 
been  subject  to  much  reproach,  and  been  stigmatised  as 
deists,  materialists,  &c." 

I  am  prepared  to  show,  that  though,  "  on  this  ques- 
tion Universalists  are  divided  in  opinion,"  according  to 
Mr.  Le  Fevre,  it  is  yet  their  prevailing  belief,  that 

IX.    MAN  HAS   NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL. 

On  this  subject  Hose  a  Ballou  is  very  equivocal.  Af- 
ter so  much  dogmatism  as  he  has  exhibited  in  relation 
to  the  doctrines  of  future  and  endless  punishment,  the 
reader  will  hardly  be  prepared  to  hear  him  confess 
TOTAL  IGNORANCE  OF  A  FUTURE  STATE. 
Let  his  deluded  followers  know  that  even  their  great 
Rabbi  can  give  them  •  no  assurance  respecting  the  state 
beyond  the  grave.  His  language  is  this  :  "  As  amazed 
as  any  one  may  be  at  my  ignorance  of  a  future  state, 
I  have  no  pride  in  pretending  to  know  that  of  which  I 


MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL.  106 

Dreadful  uncertainty.  Want  of  discernment 


am  totally  ignorant.  After  all  that  has  been  said  by 
our  doctors  of  divinity  on  the  subject  of  a  future  state, 
jeason  will  acknowledge  that  they  have  no  more  know- 
leHge  concerning  its  particulars  than  an  infant  child. 
No,  they  do  not  know  for  certainty  that  man  will  exist 
in  another  state.  I  am  happy  to  believe  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  scriptures,  and  to  hope  for  immortality  beyond  the 
grave  ;  but  as  to  any  knowledge  concerning  that  state  J 
I  havenone."  ('  Future  Retribution,'  p.  127.)  Speak- 
ing  in  another  place,  (p.  172,)  "  of  everlasting  con- 
demnation in  the  future,"  he  says,  "  we  must  wait  until 
we  are  introduced  into  the  other  world,  before  we  can 
certainly  know"  What  a  sandy  foundation  !  Is  this 
all?  . 

In  the  same  volume  he  tells  us,  (pp.  182,  183,)  that 
"  this  subject,  (the  intermediate  state,)  lias  never  been 
much  agitated  among  brethren  of  our  order,  until  quite 
lately.  Dr.  Priestly's  views  of  an  unconscious  state 
after  death  were  not  known  to  me  when  I  wrote  my 
treatise  on  atonement,  nor  had  this  subject  then  ever 
been  considered  by  me.  This  accounts  for  my  silence 
on  it."  (Admirably  qualified  he  must  have  been  for  a 
reformer !)  "  Of  late  I  have  endeavored  to  know  what 
divine  revelation  has  communicated  on  this  subject; 
but,  owing  to  my  want  of  discernment"  (an  honest 
confession,  truly,)  "  I  have  not  been  able  to  reconcile 
all  the  passages,  which  seem  to  relate  to  the  case,  to  a 
fair  support  of  either  side  of  the  question.  My  efforts, 
I  acknowledge,  have  not  been  made  with  that  intense- 
ness  of  application,  respecting  this  matter,  as  they  would 


106  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Question  of  no  great  consequence.  Sketch  of  Mr.  Balfour. 

have  been,  had  I  been  persuaded  that  the  question  was 
of  any  great  consequence."  Of  no  great  consequence 
what  becomes  of  man  for  thousands  of  years  !  Does 
he, — can  he  believe  it  ?  Is  not  this  a  mere  evasion  of 
the  whole  question  1  Nay,  is  it  not  a  confession  of  the 
feebleness  of  his  own  system  1  But  let  us  hear  him 
further. .  "  Being  fully  satisfied  that  the  scriptures  teach 
us  to  believe  no  moral  state,  between  the  death  of  the 
body,  and  the  resurrection-state, — it  seemed  to  me  im- 
material whether  we  enter,  immediately,  after  the  dis- 
solution of  the  body,  on  the  resurrection-state,  or  sleep  in 
unconscious  quietude  any  given  time  before  that  glo- 
rious event  shall  take  place."  The  sum,  then,  of  what 
Mr.  Ballou  has  said,  is  that  all  mankind  are  imme- 
diately at  death  received  to  bliss,  or  are  extinguished 
in  the  grave,  no  more  to  exist  until  the  resurrection. 
The  former  he  dare  not  assert.  The  latter  he  does  not 
deny. 

Let  us  now  turn  away  from  the  darkness  of  the  mas- 
ter to  the  blazing  light  of  the  disciple.  In  1819,  a 
few  straggling  doubts,  concerning  the  truth  of  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  misery,  found  their  way  into  the  mind 
of  Walter  Balfour,  of  Charlestown,  Mass.  This  gen- 
tleman "  was  brought  up  in  the  doctrine  of  the  church 
of  Scotland."  "  When  I  came  to  judge  for  myself," 
he  says, "  I  became  an  Independent  or  Congregational- 
ist ;  I  then  became  a  Baptist ;  and  am  now  a  Univer- 
salist,  and  one  of  those  who  have  no  faith  in  future 
punishment."  ('  Letters  to  Hudson,'  p.  22.)  In  1820, 
he  proposed  his  difficulties  to  a  distinguished  Professor, 


MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL.  107 

Bill/bur's  First  Inquiry.  Second  Inquiry! 

as  an  "  Inquirer  after  Truth."  It  appears  that  he  still 
remained  unsettled  in  his  views  as  late  as  1821,  (see 
( Reply  to  Stuart/  p.  5.)  Either  in  that  or  the  follow- 
ing year  he  became  a  true  disciple  of  Ballou. 

Full  of  his  new  views,  Mr.  Balfour  set  himself  to 
work  with  all  the  zeal  of  a  new  convert ;  and,  early  in 
1824,  produced  a  work  of  448  pages  octavo,  devoted  to 
a  determination  of  the  meaning  of  four  words,  "  all 
translated  Hell,  in  the  common  English  version."  To 
the  inexpressible  joy  of  the  whole  body  of  Universalists 
in  this  country,  he  claimed  for  himself  the  distinguish- 
ed credit  of  having  "  shown  by  irrefragable  proof,  that, 
by  Hell,  the  sacred  writers  meant  either  the  state  of  the 
dead  in  general,  without  reference  to  either  the  good- 
ness or  badness  of  the  persons,  their  happiness  or  mise- 
ry ;  or  else  a  state  of  unhappiness  in  the  present  life." 
In  other  words,  he  ascertained  that  there  is  in  existence 
no  "  place  called  hell,  in  a  future  state,  prepared  for  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked,"  and  that,  therefore,  all 
fear  of  hell  torments  is  wholly  imaginary. 

In  his  second  edition  of  the  same  "  Inquiry,"  pub- 
lished in  1825,  he  goes  farther,  and  maintains  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  retribution  must  be  given  up.  A 
*  Second  Inquiry'  followed  soon  after,  in  which  he  show- 
ed conclusively  to  his  own  mind,  anil  his  brethren-be- 
lievers, that  no  word  or  phrase,  expressive  of  endless 
duration,  is  applied  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked, 
and  "  in  which  the  common  doctrine  of  a  super-human 
devil  is  exploded."  The  way  being  thus  cleared,  by 
exploding  the  devil,  and  abolishing  hell,  the  same  in- 


108  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS; 

Intermediate  state.  None  go  to  heaven  at  death. 

defatigable  writer  proceeded  to  show  in  "  Three  Es- 
says" published  early  in  1828,  that,  there  being  no 
place  for  the  keeping  of  the  spirits  of  the  departed,  the 
grave  is  man's  only  resting-place  until  the  resurrection. 

It  is  "  generally  believed  by  Christians  of  all  sects," 
he  remarks,  that  the  spirits,  or  souls  of  men  "  survive 
death  and  enjoy  happiness,  or  suffer  misery,  in  a  disem- 
bodied state  between  death  and  the  resurrection."  In  this 
respect,  however,  he  differs  from  them  all ;  for  he  de- 
clares (p.  12,)  "  that  the  common  opinions  on  this  sub- 
ject are  unscriptvral  ;  have  their  origin  in  heathenism ; 
and  have  proved  a  fertile  source  of  superstition  and  im- 
position in  the  Christian  church."  In  the  course  of  his 
c  Inquiry'  he  remarks,  (p.  97,)  that  "  man  comes  into 
the  world,  and  dies  similar  to  the  brute  creation  /'  and 
he  asks,  (p.  Ill,)  "  of  what  real  benefit  can  it  be  to 
man,  to  cheer  him  with  the  prospect  of  immediate  hap- 
piness after  death,  if  it  is  not  taught  in  Scripture  ? 
After  examining  this  subject  with  all  the  care  and  atten- 
tion I  am  able  to  give  it,  I  must  say  it  is  only  ideal 
cheer."  Again,  (p.  117,)  "  /  send  no  man,  either  good 
or  bad,  to  heaven  at  death,  nor  at  any  period  after  it,  un- 
til the  resurrection  of  all  the  dead."  How,  after  this, 
can  any  Universalist  indulge  the  delusive  hope  of  being 
happy  when  he  dies  ?  Mr.  Balfour,  the  scholar  and 
the  divine,  erudite  and  profound,  has  pronounced  it  a 
hopeless,  "  ideal  cheer." 

In  his  '  Letters  to  Hudson,'  he  denies  (p.  32,)  "  that 
the  intermediate  state  has  any  existence,  except  in  the 
imaginations  of  men."  He  assures  us  (p.  243,)  "  that 


MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL.  109 

World  of  •pirite  a  mere  fiction.  Mail  has  but  one  nature. 

wan  at  death  just  returns  to  his  original  condition  ;" 
he  returns  to  dust.  That  all  life,  according  to  Mr.  Bal- 
four,  becomes  extinct  at  death,  appears  further  from  his 
assertion  (p.  261,)  "  that  the  only  hope  revealed  to  man 
of  future  life  is  in  being  raised  from  the  dead  in  the  re- 
surrection at  the  last  day."  In  this  he  is  followed  by 
Mr.  Sawyer,  who,  speaking  in  his  '  Letters  to  Reming- 
ton,' (p.  104,)  of  all  men  being  made  alive  in  Christ  at 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  says,  "  for  myself,  I  am 
frank  to  confess  that  I  know  of  no  life  beyond  the  present, 
save  as  conferred  by  Jesus  Christ." 

Mr.  Balfour,  in  his  *  Reply  to  Professor  Stuart,' 
asks,  (p.  11,)  "  Does  the  gospel,  sir,  bring  to  light  any 
other  life  and  immortality,  but  by  a  resurrection  from 
the  dead  1  If  it  does,  I  will  thank  you  to  show  this, 
for  here  I  confess  ignorance."  "  I  know,  (p.  87,)  of 
no  other  future  life  the  Bible  reveals."  Speaking  of 
"  a  world  of  souls,  naked,  helpless,  disembodied  spirits/' 
he  says,  (p.  115,)  "  I  honestly  believe  it  has  no  existence 
except  in  men's  imaginations" 

The  natural  inference  from  all  this  is,  that  man  is  not 
immortal — that  he  has  not  a  nature  distinct  from,  and 
independent  of,  the  body.  The  doctrine  of  two  co-ex- 
istent natures  in  man — body  and  soul — maintained  by 
a"  '  the  Christian  world,  with  rare  exceptions,  must  be 
given  up,  if  Universalism  prevails.  Mr.  Balfour 
both  denies  and  ridicules  such  a  doctrine.  In  his  '  Let- 
ters to  Hudson,'  he  says,  (p.  33,)  "  If  any  believe  in 
the  doctrine  of  immortal  souls,  and  take  them  all  to 
heaven  at  death,  it  is  no  concern  of  mine."  From 
10 


110  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Man  is  only  body  and  breath.  Heathen  chaff, 

the  frequent  use  of  the  qualifying  word  immortal,  it 
might  be  thought,  that  the  existence  of  the  soul  was 
admitted  but  not  its  immortality.  We  are  not,  how- 
ever, left  to  such  a  conclusion.  "  The  thing  God 
breathed  into  Adam  was  (p.  239,)  '  the  breath  of  life ;' 
which  was  no  more  a  thinking,  conscious  being  than  the 
body  into  which  it  was  breathed.  It  was  this  breath 
of  life,  breathed  into  the  body  and  in  union  with  it,  both 
were  constituted  a  living  soul,  or  person."  With  his 
grammar  here  I  have  no  concern,  but  with  the  senti- 
ment ;  and  that  plainly  is,  that  man  has  no  thinking 
soul  distinct  from  the  body  and  animal  life — that  these 
two  constitute  what  is  called  the  soul,  the  person,  the 
man.  That  this  is  his  meaning  appears  from  his  call- 
ing on  Mr.  H.  (p.  240,)  to  "  show  how  the  mere  union 
of  life  with  the  bodily  frame  transforms  life  into  an  im- 
mortal soul,  a  thinking  conscious  being,  which  is  to 
suffer  or  enjoy  in  a  disembodied  state."  Again  he  asks, 
"  When  does  your  immortal  soul  first  become  a  think- 
ing, conscious  being  ?" 

As  usual,  he  is  exceedingly  positive  and  certain  that 
all  the  world  are  wrong,  except  himself  and  his  follow- 
ers. Hear  how  he  speaks  ;  "  I  travel,"  he  says,  (p.  243,) 
"  through  both  Old  and  New  Testament  in  search  of  evi- 
dence for  your  immortal  soul ;  but  I  can  find  none,  that 
either  such  a  soul  was  breathed  into  man,  or  is  breathed 
out  of  any  one  at  death."  "  Your  doctrine  of  an  im- 
mortal soul,  (p.  339,)  and  its  punishment  after  death,  is 
of  heathen  origin ;"  "  is  but  heathen  chaff,  (p.  342,) 
which  the  wind  of  free  inquiry  and  investigation  into 


MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL.  Ill 

Effects  of  free  inquiry.  Doctrine  of  the  common  people. 

the  scriptures  must  ere  long  blow  away. — Go  it 
must,  unless  free  inquiry  is  retarded,  or  some  very  new 
discovery  is  made  from  the  Bible.  The  very  rage  for 
immortal  soul-saving,  in  the  present  day,  is  calculated 
to  hasten  this  desirable  event."  "  It  is  a  doctrine," 
(p.  353,)  "  not  only  at  war  with  the  f  rincicles  of  the  Bi- 
ble, but  with  that  of  reason,  justice,  and  common  sense." 
That  the  Christian  world  have  been  until  the  days  of 
these  very  sensible  men,  lamentably  deficient  in  "  com- 
mon sense,"  we  have  already  learned  from  from  others 
of  Mr.  Balfour's  coadjutors  in  the  work  of  demolition. 
Of  course,  we  must,  hereafter,  give  up  all  claims  to  its 
possession. 

The  amount  of  these  declarations  is,  that  the  com- 
mon notion  that  man  has  an  immortal  soul  is  all  a  hea- 
then delusion,  that  there  is  no  soul  to  survive  the  de- 
struction or  cessation  of  animal  life,  that  at  death  the 
whole  man  dies,  and  that  there  never  would  be  a  con- 
scious existence  again,  but  for  the  resurrection.  If  it 
be  said  that  these  are  the  views  of  Mr.  Balfour  alone, 
I  ask  for  the  proof.  They  have  never  been  vlisowned 
by  the  order,  and  his  works  are  every  where  for  sale 
in  their  book-stores  as  "  Universalist  publications." 
That  the  common  people  maintain  them,  I  do  not  be- 
lieve. They  liopr  to  go  to  heaven  as  soon  as  they  die. 
And  their  dishonest  teachers  have  not  benevolence 
enough  to  undeceive  them,  and  to  introduce  them  to  a 
full  acquaintance  with  their  more  refined  and  atheisti- 
cal speculations. 

But  we  learn,  not  from  this  inference  alone,  but  from 


112  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Man  possesses  nothing  immortal.  Departures  from  Murray. 

their  own  avowals,  that  these  are  the  views  of  the  sect 
generally.  That  "  Mr.  Le  Fevre  does  not  believe  in 
the  common  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul," 
has  already  been  shown.  "  He  says,  (p.  289,)  there 
is  no  evidence  of  man  possessing  any  thing  about  him 
immortal.  He  does  not  consider  the  mind  to  possess 
the  attribute  of  immortality  ;  because,  like  the  body,  it 
may  be  destroyed  by  accident."  "  The  future  state  of 
man,  he  considers,  based  on  the  resurrection,  and 
that  state  will,  according  to  the  Apostle,  be  glorious 
for  all." 

Another  writer  in  the  ( Gospel  Anchor,'  (II.  305,) 
avows  the  same  sentiments.  He  says  that  "  it  is  im- 
possible to  deny  that  all"  our  "  intellectual  phenome- 
na, are  properties  of  the  body.  When  the  body  dies, 
and  the  nervous  system  with  it,  all  these  phenomena 
cease  and  are  irrecoverably  gone.  We  never  possess 
after  death,  so  far  as  our  senses  can  inform  us,  the 
slightest  evidence  of  the  existence  of  any  remaining  be- 
ing, which,  connected  with  the  body  during  life,  is 
separated  from  it  at  death."  "  If  the  intellectual  pheno- 
mena is  the  soul,  and  dependent  upon  corporeal  organ- 
ization, when  the  body  dies,  it  will,  of  course,  cease  to 
exist." 

The  editor  of  the  *  Life  of  Murray,'  in  commenting 
on  the  differences  between  the  faith  of  the  father  of 
Universalism,  and  that  of  his  children,  fully  admits  that 
these  views  are  general  among  them.  "  Nor  is  it  now 
admitted,"  he  remarks,  (p.  279,)  "by  Universalists 
generally,  that  man  possesses  two  natures ;  and  their 


MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL.  113 

Ideal  chr«-r.  Death  the  extinction  of  being. 

views  necessarily  conflict  with  many  of  Mr.  Murray's 
interpretations  of  Scripture,  in  which  he  fully  express- 
ed and  maintained,  that  human  beings  were  thus  con- 
stituted." 

Though  we  find  Mr.  Ballou  asking,  ('  Lecture-Ser- 
mons," p.  328,)  "  What  can  give  more  rational  con- 
solation to  those  who  mourn,  than  to  realize  that  the 
spirits  of  their  departed  connections  are  with  God  ?  or 
what  thought  can  possibly  contribute  more  to  tranquil- 
ize  our  minds,  and  to  prepare  us  to  meet  our  own  dis- 
solution, than  a  confident  belief  that  we  shall  be  with 
God  ? — and  of  this  we  may  be  safely  persuaded ;" — in 
another  place  we  find  him  declaring  that  he  is  "  fully 
satisfied  that  the  scriptures  teach  us  to  believe  no  moral 
state  between  the  death  of  the  body  and  the  resurrec- 
tion-state." ('  Fut.  Retrib.'  p.  183.) 

That  Mr.  Kneeland,  and  the  large  portion  of  the 
sect,  who  regarded  him  then  as  an  oracle,  had  no  faith 
in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  is  made  clear  by  his  own 
confession.  "  It  will  be  perceived  here,"  he  says, 
('  Lectures,'  p.  48,)  that  the  author  does  not  believe  in 
an  intermediate  state  of  conscious  existence  between 
death  and  the  resurrection ;  and  of  course  death,  to  him, 
is  an  extinction  of  being  ;  and  all  his  ideas  of  a  future 
state  of  existence  are  predicated  on  the  glorious  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection." 

These  sentiments  they  have  been  driven  to  adopt,  in 

order  to  save  the  labor  of  proving  that  man  will  not 

sin,  and  so  suffer  after  death,  and  until  the  resurrection. 

The  course,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  very  simple.     It  is 

10* 


114  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

On  a  level  with  brutes.  Thought  accounted  for. 

only  to  deny  that  the  soul  survives  the  body,  and  then, 
that  man  has  an  immortal  soul  that  can  think,  or  feel, 
or  exist,  except  as  it  is  connected  with  the  animal 
frame.  All  this  they  have  done.  They  have  degraded 
themselves  nearly  to  a  level  with  the  brutes,  and  de- 
nied that  in  which  the  glory  of  man  has  been  heretofore 
thought  to  consist.  All  this  they  have  been  compelled, 
they  have  been  willing,  to  do,  and  much  more  they 
would  do,  if  necessary,  to  maintain  their  favorite  and 
much-loved  doctrine — no  punishment  after  death.  The 
Lord  deliver  his  people  and  the  world  from  such  un- 
principled teachers ! 

It  may  yet  be  asked,  '  How  do  these  men  account 
for  the  exercise  of  thought,  if  man  has  no  distinct  spir- 
itual nature  ?'  Mr.  Ballou  shall  give  the  reply,  in  his 
own  words.  "A  careful  examination  ('Atonement,'  p. 
31,)  of  our  natural  senses,  as  mediums  of  pleasure  and 
pain,  and  health  and  sickness,  will  very  naturally  lead 
to  a  consideration  of  these  same  senses  as  being  the  ori- 
gin, as  far  as  we  can  see,  of  our  thoughts  and  volitions. 
With  these  senses  are  necessarily  connected  all  the  vari- 
ous passions  which  we  possess,  and  which  are  ever  in 
accordance  with  the  ideas  or  thoughts  by  them  created. 
From  the  ever-changing  combinations,  and  various  ev- 
olutions of  these  our  senses,  thoughts,  ideas,  appetites  and 
passions,  are  found  to  originate  all  that  variety  of  moral 
character  which  is  found  in  man."  Here  is  Materialism 
with  a  witness !  Here,  after  all,  I  am  inclined  to  think, 
Mr.  Balfour  took  his  text,  when  he  proved,  as  he 


MAN  HAS  NO  IMMORTAL  SOUL.  115 

Materialism.  Death  the  great  Savior. 

thought,  that  man  had  no  immortal  soul.  Mr.  Ballou 
is  a  Materialist,  and  of  the  worst  kind,  notwithstanding 
that  he  has  elsewhere  told  us,  that  he  could  not  satisfy 
himself  about  the  intermediate  state. 

It  is  not  wonderful,  that,  as  says  Mr.  LeTevre, 
some  of  Mr.  Ballou's  disciples  are  afraid  to  avow  their 
sentiments,  and  keep  silence  lest  they  should  be  called 
Deists,  &c.  They  may  well  be  ashamed  of  a  doctrine 
that  makes  Death,  and  not  Jesus,  the  great  Savior  from 
sin.  Where  Christ  saves  one  from  sin  in  this  life, 
Death  saves  its  thousands,  if  this  doctrine  be  true. 
Where  can  we  find  a  perfect  man — one  entirely  free 
from  sin  ?  But  death  puts  an  end  to  sin  and  sinners 
too.  This  is  Mr.  Ballou's  language.  "  It  (the  pun- 
ishment) evidently  accomplishes  this  design — putting  a 
stop  to  the  practice  of  vice — by  the  death  of  the  subject." 
('  Fut.  Retrib.'  p.  126.)  In  the  'Magazine  and  Ad- 
vocate,' (VII.  284,)  it  is  maintained  that  death  is  the 
grand  instrument  by  which  Christ  frees  men  from  sin. 
"  How  then  is  it  impossible,"  asks  the  writer,  "  that 
men  should  be  saved  from  their  sins  by  Christ,  if  death 
is  the  grand  instrument  by  which  he  saves  them,  or 
frees  them  from  their  sins  ?  I  can  conceive  of  nothing 
that  will  subdue,  even  annihilate  every  fleshly  passion 
and  appetite  that  leads  to  sin,  like  the  all-conquering 
power  of  death."  All  that  a  man  has  to  do,  then, 
according  to  this,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  his  sins, 
is  to  put  an  end  to  his  life — or  to  commit  the  awful 
sin  of  suicide.  Thus  he  becomes  his  own  savior, 


1 16  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Death  of  Christ,  not  needful. 

through  the  grand  instrument — death.      Sin  saves  him 
from  sin ! 

Of  what  use  was  it,  then,  for  Christ  to  come  into 
the  world  and  endure  such  sorrows  and  pains  to  save 
men  from  sin,  when  death  could  do  it  effectually  with- 
out him  ?  And  yet  the  authors  and  abettors  of  this 
heaven-daring  and  insulting  scheme  call  themselves 
CHRISTIANS ! ! 


CHAPTER  IX. 

NO   ESCAPE  FROM    PUNISHMENT. 

Nature  of  suffering  for  sin — God  ail  just  and  inexorable — Sin 
invariably  punished  in  full — Zeal  for  God's  justice — No  re- 
mission of  punishment  by  forgiveness — Views  of  Zophart 
David,  Ezra,  and  the  pious  in  our  day — Question  of  Suicide 
— Denial  of  its  criminality — The  mercy  of  God  excluded. 

"  My  firm  persuasion  is,  at  least  sometimes, 
That  heav'n  will  weigh  man's  virtues  and  his  crime* 
With  nice  attention  in  a  righteous  scale, 
And  save  or  damn  as  these  or  those  prevail. 
I  plant  my  foot  upon  this  ground  of  trust, 
And  silence  ev'ry  fear  with — GOD  is  JUST. 
But  if,  perchance,  on  some  dull  drizzling  day 
A  thought  intrude,  that  says,  or  seems  to  say, 
'  If  thus  th'  important  cause  is  to  be  tried, 
Suppose  the  beam  should  dip  on  the  wrong  side ;' 
I  soon  recover  from  these  needful  frights, 
And — GOD  is  MERCIFUL — sets  all  to  rights." — COWP«R. 

THE  views  thus  far  presented  relate  chiefly  to  the 
question  of  the  continuance  of  punishment  or  suffering 
for  sin.  Let  us  now  inquire  into  their  notions  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  this  suffering. 

When  this  sect  first  became  known  they  were  accu- 
sed of  setting  aside  the  justice  of  God,  while  they  mag- 
nified his  mercy  out  of  all  proportion.  Said  Dr.  Young, 


118  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  scheme  remodelled.     ,  A  very  Shylock. 

"  They  set  at  odds  heav'n's  jarring  attributes, 
And  with  one  excellence  another  wound, 
Till  mercy  triumphs  over — God  himself." 

Nor  could  they,  according  to  the  scheme  then  in  vogue 
among  them,  and  still  supposed,  by  the  larger  part  of 
the  Christian  church,  to  be  still  their  current  doctrine, 
escape  the  imputation.  They  felt  it,  and  set  them- 
selves to  work,  in  order  to  rid  themselves  of  the  diffi- 
culty. Their  whole  scheme  was  professedly  remod- 
elled ;  and  at  length  came  forth  with  an  entire  new 
dress.  From  having  pushed  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
mercy  to  an  extreme,  at  the  expense  of  justice,  they 
now  cast  mercy  aside,  and  maintain  that  justice  will  be 
exacted,  even  to  the  uttermost  farthing,  of  every  trans- 
gressor. 

The  God,  whom  our  modern  Universalists  profess  to 
worship,  is  a  God  inexorable,  as  determined  to  exact 
and  obtain,  to  the  very  letter  of  the  law,  all  that  jus- 
tice demands  of  the  sinner  personally,  as  the  veriest 
Shylock.  Let  the  world  fully  understand  that  this 
scheme  of  "  Universal  charity"  as  it  has  been  called, 
shuts  up  the  bowels  of  divine  compassion,  and  pro- 
claims that, 

X.    EVERY  MAN  WILL  INEVITABLY  SUFFER  TO  THE   FULL 

EXTENT    OF  HIS  DESERTS. 

Whatever  a  man  deserves  for  his  transgressions  he 
will  invariably  receive,  and,  as  most  of  them  think,  in 
this  world.  They  are  determined  that  justice  shall  have 
no  claim  upon  them  in  another  world,  or  state  of  being. 


NO  ESCAPE  FROM  Pl'MMlMKNT.  119 

Sin  puni.-li<  d  to  tlie  full.  No  escape  from  deserved  Buffering. 

'I'll us  they  hold  out  to  the  world  the  idea  that  they  pay 
the  highest  regard  to  the  justice  of  God :  while,  after 
all  their  pains  to  deceive  themselves  and  the  people,  it 
turns  out,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  that  this  very  suf- 
fering required  by  justice  they  represent  as  only  the 
highest  exercise  of  mercy. 

Since  they  have  adopted  this  modification  of  their 
creed,  they  appear  to  be  wonderfully  pleased  with  their 
own  ingenuity  in  devising  it.  They  can  scarcely  be- 
lieve or  admit  that  any  one,  who  is  not  a  Universalist 
of  the  latest  type,  believes  at  all  in  the  justice  of  God. 
It  is  claimed  by  Mr.  Williamson,  in  his  '  Exposition  of 
I  niversalism,'  (p.  15,)  "  as  one  of  the  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  Universalism,  that  no  man  can,  by  any  possi- 
bility, escape  a  just  punishment  for  his  sins."  "  Neither 
forgiveness,  nor  atonement,  nor  repentance,  nor  any 
thing  else,  can  step  in  between  the  sinner  and  the 
penalty  of  the  violated  law."  "  It  is  a  remarkable 
fact,"  he  says,  "  that  we — are  the  only  denomination 
who  believe  that  all  sin  will  be  punished." 

In  the  '  Universalist  Companion'  for  1841,  we  are 
told,  (p.  6,)  in  a  statement,  by  Mr.  Grosh  of  Utica,  of 
their  freed,  that "  Universalists  believe  that  there  are  no 
means  whereby  tin-  guilty  can  be  cleared  from  proper  and 
necessary  ininishinrnt  ;"  and  that  they  "  hold  to  the  06- 
solutcly  cirtuin  and  positively  adequate  punishment  of 
sin.'"  As  on  this  point  their  sentiments  are  extensively 
misunderstood,  it  is  proper  to  go  somewhat  into  de- 
tail, and  by  abundant  reference  show  what  they  do 
believe. 


120  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Repentance  clears  no  one.  Retribution  inevitable. 

They  start  with  this  proposition — "  There  is  no  one 
truth  more  fully  and  unequivocally  taught  in  God's 
word,  than  that  he  will  '  render  to  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  deeds.'  "  (<  Exp.'  HI.  66.)  Therefore,  they 
maintain,  that  no  man  can  possibly  escape  deserved 
punishment.  A  writer  in  the  '  Magazine  and  Advo- 
cate,' (VII.  10,)  declares,  "  that  punishment  is  absolute 
and  unavoidable — that  it  cannot  be  escaped  by  repent- 
ance or  any  other  means."  Mr.  Sawyer  is  of  the  same 
opinion.  He  says  to  Mr.  Remington,  (p.  29,)  "  It 
is  supposed  to  be  the  chief  glory  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion,— that  it  reveals  the  grand  panacea  by  which  the 
sinner  can  easily  escape  the  punishment  of  his  sin. 
Notwithstanding  the  popular  nature  of  this  doctrine, — I 
cannot  shake  off  the  conviction  which  the  united  testi- 
mony of  experience  and  revelation  have  impressed 
upon  my  mind,  that  a  just  God  will  reward  every  man 
according  to  his  works,  and  that  he  that  doeth  wrong 
shall  receive  for  the  wrong  which  he  hath  done  with- 
out respect  of  persons."  Mr.  Sawyer's  scheme,  as 
appears  from  this  extract,  admits  of  no  escape  from 
punishment. 

In  the  endeavor  to  show  that  Universalism  is  not  of 
corrupt  tendency,  Mr.  Whittemore  says,  ('  Plain  Guide,' 
p.  263,)  "  So  far  from  destroying  the  fear  of  retribu- 
tion, Universalism  quickens  it,  by  showing  that  the  pun- 
ishment of  sin  cannot  be  avoided."  He  avers,  (p.  262,) 
that  Universalists  teach  that  "  all  men  shall  be  re- 
warded according  to  their  works,  that  the  punishment 
of  sin  is — swift,  sure,  and  inevitable." 


NO  ESCAPE  FROM  PUNISHMENT.  121 

Justice  inexorable.  Forgiveness  defined. 

Says  Mr.  Skinner,  in  his  *  Univ.  Illustrated', — 
"  Justice  will  have  (p.  249,)  all  its  demands :  every 
man  shall  suffer  to  the  full  extent  of  his  deserts.  There 
is  no  remission  of  punishment,  either  on  account  of  the 
Savior's  death,  or  the  sinner's  penitence." 

"  I  have  shown,"  says  Mr.  Williamson,  (<  Exposi- 
tion,' p.  65,)  "  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  object,  either 
of  the  labors,  sufferings,  or  death  of  Christ,  to  open  a 
way  by  which  the  guilty  could  evade  the  rod  of  his 
Father's  justice."  "  I  have  more  than  once  said,  that  no 
man  can  escape  the  just  punishment  of  his  sins." 
From  such  a  punishment,  as  they  think,  there  can  be 
no  deliverance,  even  by  forgiveness.  Though  the  Bible 
every  where  speaks  of  forgiveness,  they  will  have  it, 
that  pardon  never  frees  the  transgressor  from  the  suf- 
fering deserved  by  his  sins.  These  were  the  views  of 
Abner  Kneeland,  as  early  as  1818.  "  Forgiveness," 
he  says,  ('  Lecture,'  p.  40,)  "  in  imperfect  and  chan- 
geable creatures,  i.  e.,  in  man,  may  be  a  real  relin- 
quishment  of  a  punishment  which  was  absolutely  in- 
tended to  have  been  inflicted;  but  not  so  with  the 
Deity.  He  changeth  not.  Therefore,  forgiveness  in 
him  can  be  nothing  more  than  a  manifestation  of  his 
unchangeable  nature  to  the  sinner!"  "  Forgiveness 
(p.  41,)  does  not  militate  against  the  idea  of  the  sinner's 
being  punished  according  to  strict  justice."  Who  won- 
ders that  such  a  man  should  become  an  Atheist  ? 

"  We  learn"  from  the  '  Univ.  Expositor,'  (I.  153,) 
"  that  the  gospel  is  not  a  scheme  which  God  has  con- 
trived for  clearing  sinners  from  suffering  what  his  own 
11 


122  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Forgiveness  clears  no  one.  Sin,  not  punishment,  forgiven. 

word  solemnly  pronounced  upon  them.7'  "Accord- 
ingly, (p.  155,)  the  person  who  has  been  forgiven  has 
suffered  the  proper  punishment  of  his  sins  ;  even  as  the 
man  who  has  been  healed  of  a  bodily  disease,  has  suf- 
fered the  natural  evils  of  that  disease."  No  forgive* 
ness  until  the  full  punishment  has  been  inflicted  !  Is 
this  the  kind  of  forgiveness  that  is  enjoined  on  man  in 
relation  to  his  fellow-man  ?  "  The  lord  of  that  servant 
was  moved  with  compassion,  and  loosed  him,  and  for- 
gave him  the  debt."  (Matth.  xviii.  27.)  What? 
Did  he  exact  the  whole  debt  first,  and  then  forgive  it  1 
Absurd. 

"  The  common  opinion,  that  forgiveness  is  a  remis- 
sion of  punishment,  is  altogether  incorrect,"  says  O.  A. 
Skinner,  (<  Univ.  111.  and  Def.'  p.  250.)  "  How,"  he 
asks,  (p.  251,"  can  the  coiamon  doctrine  of  forgiveness 
be  correct  ?  There  is  not  a  syllable  concerning  it  in 
the  Bible."  "  Accordingly,"  he  udds,  p.  252,  "  the 
person  who  has  been  forgiven,  has  suffered  the  proper 
punishment  of  his  sins."  He  suffers  none  the  less  in 
consequence  of  being  pardoned. 

Mr.  Fernald,  of  Newburyport,  in  his  *  Universalism 
against  Partialism,'  (p.  259,)  has  this  language ; — 
"  The  forgiveness  which  our  Christian  clergy  preach  is 
generally  represented^and  generally  understood,  to  be 
the  forgiveness  or  remission  of  hell-torments.  But  the 
Bible  knows  nothing  about  such  a  doctrine.  It  never 
teaches  the  forgiveness  or  remission  of  punishment  for 
sins  committed.  It  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  by 


NO  ESCAPE  FROM  PUNISHMENT. 


123 


'  Amazing  grace.'  Paid  aa  we  go  along. 

which  is  understood,  the  blotting  out,  or  cleansing 
from,  after  due  justice  is  administered" 

(  Is  this  the  meaning  of  forgiveness  V  a  stranger  to 
these  views  at  once  will  ask ; — *  Who  ever  attached 
such  a  meaning  to  the  word  in  common  life  ?  Surely 
I  must  go  to  school  again  to  learn  what  the  most  com- 
mon-place words  mean,  and  have  a  dictionary  too, 
compiled  by  one  of  these  knowing  ones.'  They  who 
teach  these  things,  know  and  admit  that  their  sense  of 
the  word  is  peculiar,  and  so  they  call  the  other  sense 
the  common  one,  and  strive  hard  to  subvert  it,  and  sub- 
stitute their  own.  According  to  their  views  of  the 
matter,  God  never  abundantly  pardons  until  he  has  ex- 
acted the  utmost  farthing  from  the  poor  debtor — never 
says  to  the  prisoner  *  Go  free  !'  until  the  whole  debt 
has  been  discharged !  (  Amazing  grace  /'  If  this  be 
forgiveness  or  pardon,  then  Rathbun  and  every  other 
criminal  in  Auburn  will  yet  receive  a  full  pardon! 
And  that  without  asking  for  it.  Let  them  serve  their 
time  out,  and  they  will  be  pardoned  !  It  is  time  that 
our  governors  were  better  instructed  in  the  true  im- 
port of  the  word  *  forgiveness.' 

Universalism,  then,  maintains  that  every  sin  of  every 
sinner  will  be  followed  by  its  appropriate  and  full  pun- 
ishment. That  we  receive  our  punishment  '  as  we  go 
along,'  is  a  very  common  and  favorite  doctrine  with 
them  all.  Those  who  deny  future  punishment  profess, 
of  course,  to  believe,  that  every  sin  is  punished  in  this 
life  in  exact  ratio  to  its  criminality;  and  that  it  is 


124  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Scripture-doctrine.  Confessions  of  the  pious. 

utterly  impossible  for  the  sinner  to  escape  in  a  single 
instance. 

True,  Job's  friend,  the  Naamathite,  could  say  to  him, 
(Job  xi.  6,)  "  Know,  therefore,  that  God  exacteth  of 
thee  less  than  thine  iniquity  deserveth /"  but  Zophar 
lived  too  soon  to  understand  much  about  theology,  and 
was  entirely  ignorant  of  neology.  David  too  could  say, 
(Psalm  ciii.  10,)  "  He  hath  not  dealt  with  us  after  our 
sins,  nor  rewarded  us  according  to  our  iniquities."  But 
David  was  a  little  '  hyperbolical'  in  his  language  on 
that  occasion,  and  "  we  are  not  to  take  an  expression 
of  self-reproach,  which  one  utters  under  a  deep  sense 
of  ingratitude  and  shame,  and  employ  it  as  if  it  dis- 
proved the  well-supported  and  abstract  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  concerning  the  retributive  government  of  God !" 
So  says  the  '  Univ.  Expositor,'  (I.  159.)  The  same 
remark  is  applied  to  what  Ezra,  (ix.  13,)  upon  his 
knees  before  God,  poured  forth  from  his  burdened 
heart : — "  After  all  that  is  come  upon  us  for  our  evil 
deeds,  and  for  our  great  trespass,  seeing  that  thou,  our 
God,  hast  punished  us  less  than  our  iniquities  deserve" 

There  are,  at  this  day,  some  very  good  people  that 
are  just  as  weak  as  Zophar,  David,  and  Ezra  were ; 
and  simple  enough  most  honestly  to  believe,  that  the 
Lord  has  actually  punished  them  far  less  than  their  sins 
deserve ;  who  are  accustomed  to  say  in  the  language 
of  the  good  old  Psalm,  (cxxx.  3,  4,  "  If  thou,  Lord  I 
shouldest  mark  iniquities,  O  Lord !  who  shall  stand  ? — 
But  there  is  forgiveness  with  thee,  that  thou  mayest  be 
feared,"  Thus  they  set  punishment  and  forgiveness, 


NO  ESCAPE  FROM  PUNISHMENT.  125 

A  stubborn  fact.  The  suicide. 

over  against  each  other.  And  what  is  somewhat  re- 
markable, the  more  they  seem  to  have  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  the  more  are  they  possessed  with  this  notion ; 
particularly  as  they  survey  their  life  from  the  brink  of 
the  grave.  But  we  must  conclude  that  they  are  all 
wrong,  David,  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  all  of  them,  for  "  Gash- 
mu  saith it" 

The  principal  difficulty,  however,  lies  not  in  the 
counter  declaration  of  Scripture,  (for  he  is  a  poor  Uni- 
versalist  preacher  that  will  stumble  at  a  text,  however 
hard,— that  cannot 

"  darken  and  put  out 
Eternal  truth  by  everlasting  doubt,") — 

not  in  proving  that  *  everlasting,'  or  '  eternal,'  means 
temporal,  but  in  the  stubborn  fact  that  some  men  die  in 
the  very  act  of  crime.  It  has  always  been  a  difficult 
matter  for  men  of  this  sort  to  dispose  of  the  suicide.  In 
this  case  the  crime  is  not  consummated  until  life  is  ex* 
tinct.  The  individual  is  then,  if  in  conscious  existence, 
in  the  future  state.  It  is  evident  that  he  cannot  be 
punished  in  this  life,  and  if  punished  at  all,  must  be  in 
the  life  to  come. 

But  the  doctrine  under  consideration  allows  no  sin- 
ner to  escape,  and  not  a  single  sin  to  be  passed  by. 
He  must  receive  in  the  body  according  to  the  deeds 
done.  How  then  can  the  suicide,  or  the  high-way 
robber,  who  is  killed  in  the  very  act  of  robbery  or 
murder,  be  a  subject  of  punishment  in  this  sense  ?  It  is 
impossible.  It  cannot  be  that  death  itself  is  the  pun- 
ishment, for  many  a  righteous  man  is  killed  as  suddenly 
11* 


ON1TERSALISM  AS  IT  IS.- 


Various  devices.  Suicide  no  crime. 

and  as  violently.  Moreover,  the  crime,  in  the  case  of 
the  suicide,  consists  in  putting  an  end  to  his  life  —  that 
which,  in  most  cases,  is  sought  as  the  least  of  two 
evils.  How  can  it  be  the  punishment  then  ?  Or,  how, 
after  the  crime  is  committed,  can  there  be  any  sense  of 
suffering,  if,  as  they  maintain,  there  is  no  conscious  ex- 
istence after  death  until  the  resurrection  ? 

Various  devices  have  been  sought  out  and  adopted  to 
meet  this  exigency.  They  think  on  the  whole,  that  it 
is  not  best  (  to  dogmatize  upon  it*'  Each  is  left  to 
manage  it  as  well  as  he  can.  I  will  give  the  reader  a 
sample  of  the  manner  in  which  they  meet  it.  Aaron 
B.  Grosh,  editor  of  the  '  Magazine  and  Advocate,' 
published  in  Utica,  meets  the  whole  difficulty  by  at- 
tempting to  show,  that 

SUICIDE  is  NO  CRIME, 

As  this  individual  exerts  a  commanding  influence 
over  the  denomination,  particularly  in  Central  and 
Western  New  York,  his  opinions  carry  weight  with 
them,  and,  doubtless,  pass  current  among  the  unedu- 
cated. To  the  question,  —  "  How  do  you  reconcile 
cases  of  suicide  with  your  doctrine  of  all-sufficient 
punishment  in  this  life!"  he  replies,  (VIII.  358,) 
thus  :  — 

"  I  suppose  that  the  Scriptures  regard  it  under  one 
of  the  following  heads  :  — 

"  1.  Either,  they  class  it  under  the  head  of  murder, 
~—  '  thou  shalt  not  kill,'-  —  in  which  case,  the  penalty, 
the  whole  penalty,  the  only  penalty,  after  the  act,  I 


NO  ESCAPE  FROM  PUNISHMENT.  127 

Suicide  no  crime. 

can  there  find  on  record  against  murder,  is  inflicted  on 
the  criminal  in  the  very  ad  of  transgression  ;  viz.  by 
man  his  blood  is  shed.  I  am  not  very  sanguine  in  this 
opinion,"  (i.  e.  that  it  is  murder,)  "  inasmuch  as  there 
is  no  appearance  of  malice  in  the  offender  against 
himself ;  for  the  apostle  Paul  says,  '  no  man  ever  yet 
hated  his  own  flesh ;'  consequently,  the  act  is  scarcely 
murder. 

"  2.  Or,  the  Scriptures  consider  it  as  the  act  of  none 
who  are  of  sound  mind,  and  therefore,  accountable 
beings.  In  the  cases  where  suicides  are  recorded,  the  act 
itself  is  never  condemned,  nor  even  named  as  a  crimi- 
nal one. — It  seems  entirely  omitted  in  the  various  and 
frequent  lists  of  actions  forbidden  to  be  practised." 

"  3.  In  conclusion,  believing  the  object  of  punish- 
ment to  be  salvation  from  sin,  I  can  conceive  of  no  me 
for  it  for  this  act  more  than  for  any  other.  There  is 
no  danger  that  suicide  will  ever  be  committed  in  the 
immortal  state.  As  to  the  mental  guilt,  let  it  be 
shown  that  the  suicide  had  an  evil  intention,  and  that 
he  was  of  perfectly  sane  mind  in  forming  it,  and  that 
it  is  necessary  for  his  salvation  to  be  punished  after 
death, — and  there  is  no  one  that  will  object  to  his  re- 
(•fiving  all  that  is  necessary.  Jls  this  cannot  be  dune. 
no  more  than  I  can  prove  the  negative  of  the  proposi- 
tion, and  above  all  as  the  Bible  is  silent  on  the  subject, 
I  think  it  best  becomes  us  not  to  dogmatize  upon  it." 

To  such  results  are  they  unavoidably  driven  in  the 
support  of  a  doctrine,  contradicted  on  almost  every 
page  of  Scripture,  and  directly  subversive  of  the  whole 


128  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Fearful  doubt.  Mercy  excluded. 

gospel-plan  of  salvation.  And  yet  a  fearful  doubt 
hangs  over  the  whole  subject.  Mr.  Grosh  admits  that 
he  cannot  prove  that  the  suicide  is  not  punished  in  a 
future  state,  and,  therefore,  knows  not  that  he  will  es- 
cape. Still  he  is  willing  to  risk  it,  and  thinks  his  dis- 
ciples may. 

Who  could  believe  that  men,  with  the  Bible  in  their 
hands,  would  teach  that  suicide  is  either  no  crime,  or  so 
slight  a  one  as  to  demand  but  a  momentary  punish- 
ment ?  If  so,  men  may  commit  it,  whenever  they  are 
tired  of  life,  without  dread.  What,  then,  is  to  hinder 
the  frequent  commission  of  the  act  in  that  happy  day, 
predicted  by  these  prophets  as  soon  at  hand,  when  all 
sects  shall  be  merged  in  theirs  1  It  is  not  because  the 
doctrine  does  not  lead  to  it,  that  such  acts  are  now 
rare  among  them,  but  for  want  of  faith  in  their  own 
dogmas. 

Let  the  Christian  community  look  at  this  one  result 
of  the  system,  and  say,  can  that  be  from  Christ  which 
thus  encourages  men  to  rush  out  of  life,  whenever  they 
care  to  live  no  longer  ? — to  run  away  from  all  the  du- 
ties required  of  them  by  God,  whenever  those  duties 
become  too  burdensome  1  Surely  Universalism  hinders 
no  one  from  death,  if  he  wishes  it. 

And  let  them  also  determine,  whether  or  not  there 
is  any  room  for  the  exercise  of  mercy,  where  "  every 
transgression  and  disobedience  receives  a  just  recom- 
pense of  reward" — where  not  the  slightest  punishment 
is  ever  remitted, — where  the  sinner  cries  in  vain  even 
for  a  drop  of  water  to  alleviate  the  torments  endured 


NO  ESCAPE  FROM  PUNISHMENT.  129 

Mercy  defined.  A  I.-M. 

in  consequence  of  his  sin.  Does  not  mercy,  when  pre- 
dicated of  the  Divine  Being,  always  imply  such  a  treat- 
ment of  an  offender,  as  is  better  than  his  sins  deserve  ? 
or,  in  other  words,  the  exacting  less  in  the  way  of  punish- 
ment than  justice  demands  ?  If  so,  let  the  whole  scheme 
be  judged  by  a  rule  laid  down  by  Hosea  Ballou  him- 
self. It  may  be  found  in  the  <  Trumpet'  of  October  3d;) 
1840  : — "  There  is  no  better  rule  to  try  a  doctrine  by. 
than  the  question  *  Is  it  merciful,  or  is  it  unmerciful  V 
If  its  character  is  that  of  mercy,  it  has  the  image  of 
Jesus,  who  is  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life."  But 
this  doctrine  has  nothing  to  do  with  mercy.  Therefore 
it  is  false,  or  Anti-Christian. 


CHAPTER    X. 

SIN    ITS   OWN   PUNISHMENT. 

Nature  of  Punishment — Sin  fully  punishes  itself — Human 
penalties  should  be  abolished — The  Mosaic  Law  unjust — 
The  more  sin,  the  less  punishment — The  doctrine  a  mere 
hypothesis — Its  truth  cannot  be  known. 

"  A  dark  confed'racy  against  the  laws 

Of  virtue,  and  religion's  glorious  cause  ; 

They  build  each  other  up  with  dreadful  skill, 

As  bastions  set  point-blank  against  God's  will, 

Enlarge  and  fortify  the  dread  redoubt, 

Deeply  resolved  to  shut  a  Savior  out," — COWPER. 

IF  man  receives  all  his  punishment  in  this  world,  sin 
must  be  very  easily  recompensed.  Punishment  cannot 
be  the  dreadful  thing  which  some  have  deemed  it. 
Some  men,  at  least,  have  a  very  easy  time  of  it,  or  seem 
to  have.  In  pursuing  our  inquiries,  therefore,  it  be- 
comes important,  that  we  should  know  what  Universal- 
ists  understand  by  punishment.  If  they  differ  essen- 
tially from  the  Christian  world  in  their  views  of  the  na- 
ture and  the  design  of  punishment,  it  is  not  strange  that 
this  difference  should  also  extend  to  its  duration. 

What,  then,  is  the  punishment  of  which  the  Scrip- 
tures speak  as  due  to  sin  ?  To  this  question  no  uniform 
answer  is  given.  When  pressed  by  the  arguments  of 


SIN   ITS  OWN   PUNISHMENT.  131 

SiniU  own  avenger.  Sin  and  misery  inseparable. 

their  opponents,  they  seem  to  admit  that  it  refers  to  an 
actual  infliction  of  pain,  independent  of  the  crime  itself, 
as  a  testimony  of  the  divine  displeasure  against  sin 
But  the  favorite  doctrine  of  the  sect  is,  that 

XL SlN    FULLY   PUNISHES    ITSELF. 

By  this  they  mean,  that  there  is  such  a  necessary 
connection  between  sin  and  misery,  that  every  sin 
brings  with  it  enough  of  misery  to  serve  as  an  adequate 
punishment.  It  is  asserted  by  Mr.  Ballou,  ('  Treatise  on 
Atonement,'  p.  6,)  that  "  the  punishment,  or  sufferings, 
which  we  endure  in  consequence  of  sin,  is  not  a  dispen- 
sation of  any  penal  law,  but  of  the  law  of  necessity,  in 
which  law,  as  long  as  a  cause  continues,  it  produces 
its  effects."  It  is  here  declared,  that  punishment  is  not 
a  penal  infliction  of  suffering,  but  a  natural  and  neces- 
sary consequence  of  sin.  So  also  we  hear  him  saying, 
(*  Lect  Sermons,'  p.  157,)  "  Sin  and  misery  are  insepa- 
rably united  in  the  nature  of  cause  and  effect.  When 
and  where  we  are  sinful,  then  and  there  we  are  our 
own  tormentors."  In  other  words  the  sinner  punishes 
himself. 

We  learn  from  Mr.  Williamson,  ('  Gospel  Anchor,' 
II.  70,)  that  "  there  are  those  who  contend  that  sin 
and  misery  are  inseparably  connected,  and  that  the  act 
of  transgression  induces  its  own  punishment,  as  a  ne- 
cessary and  unavoidable  consequence.  These,"  he  adds, 
"  are  our  views  of  the  subject.  We  believe  that  pun- 
ishment and  sin  are  related  as  cause  and  effect,  and  that 
they  are,  as  closely  and  intimately  as  cause  and  effect 


UNIVERSALISM  AS   If   IS. 


Punishment  the  natural  fruit  of  sin.  The  doctrine  illustrated. 

can  be,  under  any  possible  circumstances."  Referring 
to  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  he  says,  "  There  was  no 
need,  if  we  may  so  speak,  that  God  should  take  a  rod 
and  smite  the  sinner  in  order  to  punish  him  ;  for  the  act 
of  transgression  would  necessarily  involve  the  very 
penalty  annexed.  The  punishment  for  sin  is  death  — 
spiritual  death.  And  this  punishment  flows  as  the 
legitimate  effect  of  the  act  of  transgression."  Mr.  W. 
adopts  the  opinion  of  Seneca,  "  There  is  no  greater 
punishment  for  sin  than  sin  itself." 

In  a  discussion  held  at  Boston,  in  1834,  between 
Mr.  Adin  Ballou,  a  Restorationist,  and  Mr.  Daniel  D. 
Smith,  a  modern  Universalist,  the  latter  remarked,  (p. 
46,)  "  Punishment  is  a  natural,  inevitable  consequence 
of  sin,  which  cannot  be  avoided  by  any  means.  And 
so  the  Scriptures  speak.  They  do  not  threaten  condi- 
tionally. They  speak  of  the  punishment  of  sin  as 
something  which  naturally  grows  out  of  sin,  and  which 
cannot  by  any  means  be  avoided.  There  is  no  clause 
put  in  about  repentance,  and  an  escape  by  this  means 
from  the  consequences  of  transgression." 

The  inseparable  connection  between  sin  and  its  pun- 
ishment they  are  accustomed  to  illustrate  in  the  follow- 
ing manner  :  —  "  We  know  (£  Exp.  of  Univ.,'  pp.  68, 
69,)  that  there  are  physical  laws  which  must  be  obeyed, 
if  we  would  preserve  the  health  of  the  body.  If  we 
put  our  hand  in  the  fire,  it  will  be  burned.  If  we  ex- 
pose our  bodies  to  the  cold  they  will  freeze."  "  So 
it  is  with  the  mind  :  it  has  its  laws  written  upon  it  by 
the  finger  of  the  Creator,  and  these  laws  must  be 


SIN   ITS  OWN   PUNISHMENT.  133 

Punishment  is  to  sin,  ai  pain  to  disease. 

obeyed  or  we  must  suffer."  "  I  say  then,  (p.  70,)  that 
the  very  constitution  of  man  is  proof  that  there  is  no 
escape  from  the  punishment  of  our  sins."  Punishment 
is  just  as  sure  to  follow  sin,  as  physical  suffering  a  burn. 
This  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  sin  invariably  punishes 
itself. 

Such  is  the  language  of  Mr.  Ballou.  In  relation  to 
the  prodigal  son  he  states  ('  Expos.,'  I.  167,)  that  "  the 
father  did  not  punish  his  son  after  he  had  done  commit- 
ting sin  :  but  that  the  sinner  punished  himself,  by  walk- 
ing in  that  way  in  which  there  is  no  peace." 

A  writer  in  the  same  volume,  (p.  151,)  informs  us 
that  "ihejust  punishment  of  sin  is  the  tribulation  and 
anguish  which  the  disobedient  suffer  in  their  sins. — 
Consequently  men  must  be  punished  with  misery  just 
as  long  as  they  walk  the  sinner's  way."  Of  course, 
any  thing  else  than  this  is  unjust ;  as,  for  example,  any 
extraneous  judgment  from  the  hands  of  either  God  or 
man.  Thus  the  same  writer  remarks,  (p.  155,)  "  The 
sick  man  is  freed  from  pain  by  being  freed  from  the  dis- 
ease by  which  the  pain  was  produced.  And"  this  "  is  in 
accordance  with,  and  not  opposed  to,  that  organic  law 
of  the  corporeal  system  which  connects  pain  with  dis- 
ease.— Even  so,  when  the  man  who  is  reformed  and 
forgiven  experiences  a  freedom  from  the  evil  or  pun- 
ishment of  sin, — this  is  in  accordance  with,  and  not  op- 
posed to,  that  divine  moral  law  which  connects  punish- 
ment with  sin."  Punishment  is  thus  made  to  bear  the 
same  relation  to  sin,  that  pain  bears  to  disease. 

After  the  same  manner,  Mr.  Whittemore  represents 
12 


134  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Sin  is  itself  hell.  A  Savior  shut  out. 

('Plain  Guide,'  p.  262,)  punishment  ,as  "  swift,  sure, 
and  inevitable ;  that  sin  goes  hand  in  hand  with  wo 
throughout  its  whole  duration ;  that  it  is  itself  hell" 
If  sin  is  itself  hell,  and  hell  is  the  punishment  of 
sin,  then  sin  is  its  own  punishment,  and  every  thing 
additional  is  manifestly,  and  in  the  highest  degree, 
unjust. 

That  the  natural  pain  consequent  on  sin  is  its  punish- 
ment, is  also  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Skinner,  as  exhibited 
in  <  Univ.  111.  and  Def.,'  (pp.  190,  191.)  "  Every  pas- 
sion of  our  nature,"  he  says,  "  carried  to  excess  is  cri- 
minal ;  every  passion  carried  to  excess  is  painful.  This 
pain  is  said  to  be  the  punishment  of  the  passion. — The 
same  is  true  of  every  evil  propensity  and  habit  what- 
ever. All  are  attended  with  pain  or  inconvenience, 
which  increases  in  proportion  to  the  enormity  of  the 
evil."  Sin,  therefore,  punishes  itself  in  proportion  to 
its  own  enormity  or  guilt. 

This  is  the  meaning  which  Mr.  Fernald  gives  to 
punishment,  when  he  says,  ('  Univ.  against  Partialism,' 
pp.  261,  262,)  "Repentance  will  not  absolve  from  the 
punishment  of  sins  committed."  "  It  never  will  atone  for 
what  is  past.  If  an  individual  sinsvhe  has  got  to  suf- 
fer for  it  the  whole  penalty  of  the  law.  There  is  no 
remedy  for  him. — He  may  repent  in  dust  and  ashes ; 
but  this  will  never  satisfy  justice  for  the  sin  he  has  com- 
mitted." "  You  may  talk  about  sorrow  and  contrition, 
but  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpose."  How  completely 
does  such  a  scheme  "  shut  a  Savior  out!" 

It  is  thus  made  plain,  that  it  is  extensively,  if  not  uni- 


SIN   ITS   OWN   PUNISHMENT.  135 

Human  penalties  unjust ;  and  perfectly  uselec*. 

formly,  held  as  sound  doctrine  among  Universalists, 
that  sin  adequately  punishes  itself.  On  this,  in  fact, 
they  rely  to  uphold  the  doctrine  that  justice  will  have 
all  its  demands  in  this  life.  This  last  cannot  be  given 
up,  or  justice  will  punish  in  another  world,  and  perhaps 
forever.  So  that  the  doctrine  that  I  have  now  exhibit- 
ed is  essential  to  their  scheme.  They  must  defend  it 
and  abide  by  its  consequences,  or  their  whole  system  i- 
defective — is  false. 

It  follows  inevitably  from  this  doctrine  that  ALL  THK 

PENALTIES  OF  HUMAN  LAWS  OUGHT  TO  BE  FORTHWITH 

ABOLISHED.  If  punishment  is  inseparable  from  sin,  as 
its  necessary  consequence,  then  it  is  impossible  for  the 
sinner  to  escape  his  full  deserts.  Let  him  do  what  he 
will,  he  must  suffer — must  pay  the  very  last  farthing. 
It  needs  not  the  interference  of  another  power.  The 
robber  who  goes  "  unwhipt  of  justice," — human  jus- 
tice— till  his  last  moment,  is  just  as  sure  as  any  other  to 
reap  his -full  reward.  If,  when  he  dies,  he  has  received 
his  full  deserts,  as  this  system  maintains,  then  if  he  had 
been  apprehended,  imprisoned,  and  tortured,  he  would 
have  received  more  than  he  deserved.  And  so  in  every 
other  case  where  the  penalties  of  human  laws  are  in- 
flicted, had  the  sinner  escaped  such  infliction,  he  would 
nevertheless  have  suffered  his  full  punishment. 

Now,  if  sin  thus  inevitably  punishes  itself,  if  the  sin- 
ner can  by  no  means  escape  his  just  punishment  even 
if  he  be  above  or  out  of  the  reach  of  human  laws,  what 
need  is  there  of  these  laws  ?  Are  they  not  perfectly 
useless  ?  And  are  not  the  penalties  which  they  inflict 


136  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

All  penal  statutes  should  be  annulled.  Two-fold  results  of  sin. 

unjust  in  the  extreme  ?  What  right  has  human  autho- 
rity to  punish  a  man  who  has  already  been  fully  pun- 
ished, or  who  will  be  fully  punished,  whether  human 
power  interferes  or  not,  and  none  the  less  for  such  in- 
terference ?  To  be  honest  and  consistent,  therefore, 
Universalists  ought  to  demand  that  all  penal  statutes 
should  be  at  once  repealed,  and  that  society  be  left  to  re- 
gulate itself.  Mr.  Sawyer  says  to  Mr.  Brownlee,  (XIX. 
13,)  "  The  time,  I  trust,  is  not  far  distant,  when  the  vin- 
dictive and  sanguinary  penalties  yet  remaining  on  hu- 
man statute-books  shall  be  blotted  out  forever." 

Yes,  if  Universalism  is  true,  every  positive  infliction 
of  suffering  by  any  human  authority,  whether  parental, 
or  magisterial,  as  a  punishment  for  wrong  doing,  is  un- 
just and  cruel.  Yea,  the  statute-book  of  heaven  needs 
revision.  How  is  God  to  be  justified  in  enacting  such 
a  code  of  laws  as  that  given  to  the  Hebrews,  in  which 
he  required  the  parent  and  the  magistrate  to  inflict  pe- 
nal suffering  on  the  transgressor  ?  This  system  either 
denies,  that  God  ever  does  visit  men  with  positive  in- 
fliction of  pain,  other  than  the  natural  effects  of  sin,  or 
maintains  that  he  is  guilty  of  the  most  outrageous  in- 
justice in  exacting  double  for  their  sins.  I  leave  the 
abettors  of  this  scheme  to  settle  their  account  with  the 
Bible,  on  either  supposition  as  they  best  can. 

But  another  consequence  that  flows  from  this  doctrine 
is  worthy  of  serious  attention.  The  natural  results  of 
sin  are  its  just  or  adequate  punishment.  These  results 
are  two-fold ;  bodily  and  mental,  or  disease  and  misfor- 
tune on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  remorse.  The 


ITS   OWN   PUNISHMENT.  137 

Tin-  more  onesina  the  less  lie  is  pm. 

latter  occupies  by  far  the  largest  space  in  their  views 
of  punishment.  The  former  is  almost  overlooked.  If 
now  sin  punishes  itself  according  to  its  desert,  then  the 
greater  and  more  frequent  the  crime,  the  greater  is  the 
remorse.  But  is  this  true  in  fact  as  well  as  in  theory  ? 
Does  not  this  scheme  naturally  lead  to  the  conclusion 

that  THE   MORE   ONE    SINS,  THE   LESS   HE    IS   PUNISHED  1      I 

say  not,  that  they  hold,  or  that  their  system  teaches, 
that  the  body  will  suffer  less  as  crime  increases ;  but 
that  they  do  hold  a  doctrine,  which  implies  that  the 
more  a  man  sins,  the  less  he  will  be  punished  mentally, 
— the  less  will  his  mind  be  afflicted  with  remorse 
This  is  so  manifest  that  it  scarcely  needs  to  be  argued. 
We  know,  many  of  us  by  our  own  experience,  that  what 
gave  us  at  first  great  distress,  because  of  the  remorse 
that  we  felt  in  consequence,  has  afterwards,  when  it 
became  habitual,  lost  its  power  to  disturb  our  minds. 
The  annals  of  our  penitentiaries  will  show,  that  the  hun- 
dreds who  are  yearly  imprisoned  for  some  glaring  act 
of  transgression,  and  have  become  hardened  in  crime, 
actually  suffered  less  from  their  seared  consciences  be- 
cause of  the  act  which  brought  them  to  prison,  than  on 
the  occasion  of  their  first  infraction  of  the  civil  law. 
Crime  hardens  the  heart,  and  sears  the  conscience. 
Such,  as  all  history  sho\v>.  i>  the  case  in  this  world. 
How  then  can  it  be  maintained,  with  any  show  of  rea- 
son or  truth,  that  the  sinner  is  sure  to  suffer  in  physical 
anguish,  a  full  recompense  for  every  sin  ?  How  can 
that  be  called  an  adequate  punishment  which  decreases 
in  severity  as  the  sinner  increases  in  guilt  ? 
12* 


138  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT   IS. 

,    Hypothesis  and  not  fact.  It  never  can  be  known  to  be  true. 

The  doctrine,  however,  is  held  as  a  mere  hypothesis. 
It  is  a  device  by  which  to  get  rid  of  future  punishment. 
The  abettors  of  this  device  are  not  able  to  show  that 
it  is  a  fact.  They  cannot  prove  that  men  do  invaria- 
bly suffer  as  much  from  disease,  misfortune,  and  re- 
morse, as  their  sins  deserve.  There  are  some  noto- 
riously wicked  men  that  are  greatly  prospered  in  this 
world.  They  are  almost  strangers  to  disease  and  mis- 
fortune. "  There  are  no  bands  in  their  death ;  but 
their  strength  is  firm.  They  are  not  in  trouble  as 
other  men,  neither  are  they  plagued  like  other  men." 
(Ps.  73  :  4,  5.)  It  is  as  true  now  as  it  was  in  David's 
time.  How  then  are  these  men  punished  ?  The  com- 
mon reply  to  such  a  question  is,  "  We  cannot  tell  how 
much  such  men  suffer  from  remorse."  True,  we  can- 
not tell  how  much  or  how  little.  You  and  we  are  alike 
ignorant.  You  do  not  know  that  they  suffer  much,  if 
any  thing  ;  much  less  that  they  suffer  all  that  their  sins 
deserve. 

Thus  these  views  are  based  on  ignorance,  and  are  a 
mere  assumption  of  the  whole  ground  in  dispute.  In 
order  to  determine  that  all  men  suffer  here  all  that  they 
deserve,  we  must  first  be  able  to  determine  the  full  de- 
sert of  sin,  and  then  that  every  individual  does  actually 
thus  suffer,  in  this  present  life.  Otherwise,  we  must, 
at  all  events,  be  left  in  doubt  and  fearful  apprehension 
that  punishment  will  be  inflicted  in  another  world; 
doubt,  lest  some,  who  had  their  good  things  here,  will 
have  their  evil  things  hereafter ;  lest  while  the  right- 
eous, who  suffered  here,  will  there  be  comforted,  the 


SIN   ITS   OWN   PUNISHMENT.  139 

Dreadful  want  of  assurance. 

wicked  who  were  here  "  not  in  trouble  like  other  men," 
will  there  be  tormented.  Such  are  the  delightful  as- 
surances of  this  new  sect  Such  are  their  joy  and  peace 
in  believing.  They  never  can  know  that  they  have 
suffered,  or  will  suffer,  in  this  present  life  all  that  their 
sins  deserve.  Well  may  we  exclaim,  in  view  of  such 
boastings  and  such  miserable  uncertainties,  in  fhe  lan- 
guage of  the  poet, — 

"  Oh !  star-eyed  Science !  hast  thou  wandered  there, 
To  waft  us  home  the  message  of  despair  1" 


CHAPTER    XI. 

NO    SUCH    THING     AS     PUNISHMENT. 

Design  of  punishment — A  carnal  scheme — Danger  of  misap- 
prehending their  admissions — What  does  sin  deserve — De- 
nial of  all  punishment — All  suffering  for  sin  is  the  fruit  of 
God's  love,  and  designed  only  for  the  sinner's  highest  good— 
Its  removal,  and  not  its  infliction,  a  curse — All  men  the 
children  of  God — Mankind  not  divided  into  two  distinct 
classes — Fearful  language  of  Scripture, 

"  While  man  exclaiins — '  See  all  things  for  my  use  !' 
'  See  man  for  mine  !' — replies  a  pamper'd  goose !" — POPE. 

IT  appears  to  be  the  constant  aim  of  these  writers  to 
make  their  system  as  palatable  as  possible  to  a  de- 
praved heart.  For  this  they  make  the  fall  of  our  first 
parents  nothing  more  than  a  beautiful  allegory,  never 
meant  to  be  regarded  as  a  relation  of  actual  occurren- 
ces. Thus  they  rid  themselves  of  the  original  curse,  or 
give  themselves  all  the  latitude  that  they  can  desire  in 
interpreting  its  allegorical  meaning. 

For  this,  too,  they  discard  original  sin,  or  native  de- 
pravity, and  flatter  poor  man  by  assuring  him  that  he 
comes  into  the  world  as  pure  as  an  angel.  Instead  of 
showing,  as  do  all  the  sacred  writers,  that  sin  is  "  ex- 


NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT.  141 

Very  incongmial. 

ceeding  sinful,"  they  will  scarcely  allow  that  the  human 
mind,  (or  "  intellectual  phenomena,"  as  they  call  the 
soul,)  ever  consents  to  sin.  Sin  is  simply  the  want  of 
conformity  between  a  man's  choice  and  his  judgment, 
which  choice  results  from  the  animal  appetites,  as  God 
created  them,  and  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  fulfilment  of 
his  will. 

Having  thus  converted  sin  into  righteousness,  it 
seems  rather  strange  that  they  should  ever  admit  that 
man  is  liable  to  any  punishment  at  all  for  doing  that 
which  he  cannot  help — to  which  his  mind  never  con- 
sents, which  is  only  the  working  of  the  animal  nature, 
and  accords  perfectly  with  the  Creator's  design.  But 
the  Bible  too  expressly  speaks  of  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked,  and  gives  too  many  fearful  examples  of  it,  for 
them  boldly  to  deny  in  so  many  words  all  punishment. 
Perhaps,  I  may  add,  there  is  a  voice  within,  a  con- 
science, that,  after  all  their  refined  speculations,  accu- 
ses of  guilt,  and  convinces  of  ill-desert.  To  save  appear- 
ances, therefore,  they  must  admit  punishment  of  some 
kind  ;  but  only  on  two  conditions :  viz.  the  limitation 
of  it  to  mortal  life,  or  at  most,  the  ante-resurrection 
state,  and  the  absence  of  all  penal  inflictions. 

In  making  these  admissions, — so  strangely  incon- 
genial  to  their  whole  system, — in  order  to  blind  the 
eyes  of  the  people,  they  insist  upon  it,  as  has  been 
shown,  that  all  sin  will  receive  its  full  deserts — that 
there  shall  not  be  the  least  abatement,  on  any  account 
whatever,  of  the  just  punishment  of  sin.  If  now  the 
reader,  who  has  been  accustomed  to  regard  sin,  as  an 


142  UNIVERSALISM  AS    IT    IS. 

Caution  to  tlio  reader.  What  docs  sin  deserve  ? 

unmixed  evil,  in  the  highest  degree  offensive  to  God, 
deserving  the  most  signal  manifestations  of  his  displea- 
sure and  wrath,(and  if  he  has  gathered  his  theology 
from  the  Bible  alone,  he  cannot  but  thus  judge,)  he  will 
be  liable  utterly  to  misapprehend  the  meaning  of  these 
admissions.  Let  him  first  unlearn  the  lessons  of  his 
childhood  and  youth,  and  then  let  him  be  taught  to  re- 
gard sin,  as  an  infraction  only  of  the  law  of  one's  mind, 
the  resistance  of  an  innocent  animal  appetite  to  the  bet- 
ter judgment  of  a  pure  and  noble  and  almost  godlike 
mind ;  in  short,  let  him  learn  that  what  they  call  sin  is 
only  a  carrying  out  of  the  divine  purposes  of  good, — a 
part  of  his  glorious  plan  of  benevolence,  and  indispen- 
sable to  the  greatest  good  both  of  the  sinner  and  the 
world  ; — let  him  thus  become  a  proficient  in  the  art  of 
making  black  white,  and  he  will  at  once  perceive  that 
these  new  expounders  of  scripture  venture  nothing  in 
admitting,  that  every  sin  will  inevitably  be  punished  to 
the  full  extent  of  its  desert. 

But  what  is  that  desert  1  What  evil,  after  all,  has 
the  sinner  done  ?  Whom  has  he  injured  ?  Not  God, 
they  say,  for  this  is  impossible.  Whom,  then  1  Not 
his  fellow-men,  for  "  all  things  work  together  for  good  to 
them — ."  His  sin  injures  only  himself;  and  even  this 
injury  God  is  bound  to  make  good,  since  he  brought 
the  man  into  being  and  gave  him  such  a  body  of  sin 
and  death.  How  much  then,  does  sin — thus  understood 
— fully  deserve  1  Who  can  believe  that  it  deserves 
any  punishment  at  all  1  How  safe  is  it,  therefore,  for 
those,  who  have  thus  diluted  sin  until  it  can  scarcely 


NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT.  143 

An  easy  way  to  pay  debt*.  All  suffering  the  fruit  of  lovo. 

be  distinguished  from  righteousness  itself,  to  admit  that 
every  man  will  inevitably  suffer  to  the  full  extent  of 
his  deserts,  for  every-  sin  that  he  commits !  A  very  easy 
matter  it  is,  truly,  for  a  man  to  pay  all  his  debts  when 
he  owes  nothing ! 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  that  this  strange  system,  after  all 
its  boasting  about  the  full  exaction  of  punishment,  does 
actually  deny  all  punishment,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  word.  Such  is  the  necessary  inference  from  those 
parts  of  their  creed  which  have  already  come  under  re- 
view. We  are  not  left,  however,  to  inference  alone, 
in  order  thus  to  understand  them.  I  shall  now  attempt 
to  show  that  it  is  an  essential  part  of  their  system,  and 
an  avowed  article  of  their  creed,  that 

XII.    THERE  is  PROPERLY  NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT. 

The  sufferings  which  mankind  endure,  they  regard, 
or  profess  to  regard,  as  an  expression,  not  of  God's  an- 
ger, or  displeasure,  but  of  his  love.  They  are  all  fruits 
of  a  Father's  tenderest  concern  for  the  welfare  of  his 
children,  designed  not  as  a  judicial  infliction  of  punish- 
ment, but  for  the  good,  the  personal  good  in  every  case, 
and  the  very  highest  good,  of  the  sinner  himself. 

They  are  exceedingly  tenacious  of  these  views. 
They  introduce  them  on  every  occasion.  No  matter 
what  is  the  text,  they  are  sure  to  evolve  from  it  this 
doctrine.  Take  a  few  examples.  In  a  sermon  from 
Mai.  iv.  1,— "For,  behold!  the  day  cometh  that  shall 
burn  as  an  oven,"  &c., — Hosea  Ballou  remarks,  ('  L.  Ser- 
mons,' p.  91,)  "  Now  we  know,  that  it  is  not  the  nature 


144  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

New  idea  of  regeneration.  Happy  issue  of  all  judgments. 


of  goodness  to  harm  any  creature,  but  to  do' good  to  all. 
From  these  plain  self-evident  facts  we  infer,  that  God 
will  never  administer  any  kind  of  affliction  to  any  of  his 
creatures,  which  is  not  designed  for  their  benefit." 
He  then  proceeds  to  show,  (p.  92,)  that  by  the  burning 
up  of  the  wicked  is  indicated  their  regeneration.  So 
he  explains  the  text ;  (p.  96  ;)  "  In  the  character  of  the 
proud  and  the  wicked  they  must  be  destroyed,  root  and 
branch,  and  be  translated  into  the  kingdom  of  God's 
dear  Son  !" 

In  another  sermon  on  the  destruction  of  Sodom,  he 
asks,  (p.  283,) — "  Why  should  our  heavenly  Father 
manifest  any  disapprobation  of  sin  1  Does  he  suffer 
any  inconvenience  from  it  ?"  And  he  adds,  (p.  284,) 
"  that  God  acted  in  this  instance  consistently  with  his 
nature,  which  is  love,  and  with  his  character  as  a  Fa* 
ther.  He  acted  for  the  good  of  his  creatures ;" — those 
creatures,  of  course,  whom  he  destroyed  with  "  brim- 
stone and  fire !"  The  Lecture  is  styled,  "  Divine 
Goodness  in  the  destruction  of  the  Sodomites  and  other 
sinners." 

Again,  commenting  on  Zeph.  iii.  8,  where  God  is 
heard  saying,  "  my  determination  is  to  gather  the  na- 
tions, that  I  may  assemble  the  kingdoms,  to  pour  upon 
them  mine  indignation — even  all  my  fierce  anger ;  for 
all  the  earth  shall  be  devoured  with  the  fire  of  my  jeal- 
ousy ;" — he  remarks,  (p.  350,)  "  In  this  most  interest- 
ing representation  we  are  led  to  contemplate  the  happy 
issue  of  the  judgments  of  God,  even  all  his  fierce  an- 
ger, in  the  salvation  of  his  people,  in  their  rest  and  joy." 


NO  SUCH  THING  AS   PUNISHMENT.  145 

A  eooMininf  fire.  The  only  end  of  punishment. 

"  We  may  observe,"  he  adds,  (p.  351,)  "  that  God's 
love  towards  mankind  is  a  holy  love,  and  all  the  desires 
of  that  love  are  righteous.  These  sanctify  his  severest 
judgments,  and  direct  them  all  to  the  accomplishment 
of  the  desires  of  love." 

Remarking  on  those  fearful  words — "  For  our  God 
is  a,  consuming  fire"  he  informs  us,  (p.  48,)  that  "  the 
fire  of  Divine  love  seeks  to  consume  nothing  but  that 
which  is  injurious  to  the  sinner,  who  is  the  object  of 
Divine  love."  "  LOVE  is  a  consuming  fire  to  all  the 
hay,  wood  and  stubble,  which  error  has  introduced  into 
religion !  "  How  admirably  does  such  an  explanation 
accord  with  the  admonitions  of  the  Apostle,  Heb.  xii. 
25—29! 

Mr.  Sawyer  maintains  the  same  doctrine,  and  claims 
that  such  are  the  views  of  the  whole  sect.  "  Univer- 
salists,"  he  tells  Dr.  Brownlee,  (XIII.  8,)  «  believe  that 
all  inflictions  under  the  righteous  administration  of  God, 
are  designed  to  benefit  the  punished."  "  This  is  the 
end,  (p.  7,)  the  only  end,  as  Universalists  believe,  for 
which  God  inflicts  punishment." 

O.  A.  Skinner  declares,  (<  Un.  111.  and  Def.'  p.  184,) 
that  "  the  constant  manifestation  of  divine  goodness  to 
all  men  shows  that  God  loves  the  wicked,  that  he  has 
the  same  parental  regard  for  them  which  he  has  for  the 
good."  "  Punishment  (p.  186,)  is  inflicted  from  purely 
paternal  principles."  "  That  God  punishes  (p.  188,) 
according  to  the  deeds,  clearly  proves  that  he  designs 
it  for  the  good  of  the  sinner,  and  punishes  from  the  best 
of  motives."  "  When  we  read — that  sinners  shall  be 
13 


146  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT   IS. 

A  corrective  process.  What  God  has  no  right  to  do. 

punished  for  their  iniquity,  we  are  to  understand  by  it  a 
corrective  process,  lopping  off  the  unprofitable  branch- 
es, which  hinder  the  growth  in  grace  and  divine  know- 
ledge, and  which  prevent  from  bearing  good  fruit." 
God,  he  tells  us,  (p.  191,)  "  can  only  inflict  a  corrective 
punishment,  a  punishment  that  will  aid  in  saving  the 
sinner  from  the  evil  in  which  sin  has  involved  him. 
We  see  here  the  error  of  supposing,  that  punishment  is 
inflicted  solely  to  maintain  the  honor  of  the  Lawgiver, 
and  the  dignity  of  his  government."  "  No  more  pun- 
ishment (p.  195,)  will  be  inflicted  than  the  good  of  the 
sinner  requires" 

This  course  of  Divine  procedure  they  claim  as  a 
right.  Hear  Mr.  Williamson  ;  "  God  himself  ('  Expos, 
of  Univer.'  p.  66,)  has  no  right  to  punish  in  revenge,  or 
with  a  vindictive  spirit.  He  brought  us  into  existence 
of  his  own  good  pleasure,  and  without  our  knowledge 
or  consent,  and  he  is  bound,  by  the  principles  of  his  own 
nature,  to  do  us  justice  ;  and  he  has  no  right,  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  to  do  an  injury."  He  therefore  pro- 
ceeds to  show,  (p.  72,)  that  "  all  the  punishments,  that 
God  lays  upon  men,  are  the  well-intended  chastisements 
of  a  merciful  Father,  and  so  many  testimonies  of  his 
parental  faithfulness  and  love."  "  Little  does  that  man 
know  (p.  74,)  of  the  character  of  his  heavenly  Father, 
who  views  his  punishments  in  any  other  light  but  the 
kind  administrations  of  a  friend,  who  seeks  our  perma- 
nent good." 

Such,  according  to  this  creed,  is  God's  design  in  con- 
necting suffering  with  sin — the  very  same  that  moves 


NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT.  147 

A  healing  cup.  Deliverance  a  curse. 

a  kind  parent  to  administer  the  bitter  cup  to  a  diseased 
child.  But  this  is  not  punishment.  Does  the  parent 
punish  his  child  for  being  sick,  when  he  requires  him 
to  take  the  healing  yet  bitter  draught  ?  Never.  Then 
is  it  improper  to  call  those  sufferings,  which  man  en- 
dures for  sin,  a  punishment.  There  is  no  such  thing 
in  the  Divine  administration  as  punishments,  properly 
so-called,  if  Mr.  Ballou  and  his  followers  are  right. 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Skinner  says,  (p.  250,)  "  Punish- 
ment, we  have  seen,  is  corrective  and  limited.  A  re- 
mission of  such  a  punishment  would  be  a  curse  instead 
of  a  mercy,  because  a  just  punishment  is  as  essential  to 
our  welfare,  as  anything  that  love  can  do."  After  the 
same  manner  remarks  Mr.  Williamson  ; — "  When  we 
say  (p.  67,)  that  no  man  can  escape  the  just  punish- 
ment of  his  sins,  the  cry  is  raised  that  there  is  no  mer- 
cy, and  that  we  destroy  the  mercy  of  God !  Why,  my 
dear  sir  !  do  you  not  see  that  the  very  punishment  itself 
is  inflicted  in  mercy  ?  The  sinner  is  sick;  '  from  the 
crown  of  his  head  to  the  sole  of  the  foot,  there  is  no 
soundness  in  him,'  and  God,  in  his  mercy,  administers 
the  medicine ;  bitter,  indeed,  it  may  be,  but  it  is  admin- 
istered by  the  hand  of  a  Father's  kindness." 

Again,  (p.  68,)  he  adds — "  From  such  a  punishment, 
my  position  is,  that  man  cannot  escape,  by  any  possibility ; 
and,  I  may  add,  that,  were  it  possible,  the  escape  would 
be  a  curse,  rather  than  a  blessing,  and  man's  rejoicings 
over  it  would  be  as  ill-timed  as  those  of  a  sick  man,  who 
should  rejoice  that  he  had  escaped  the  taking  of  a  heal 
ing  medicine,  forgetful  of  the  truth  that  a  deadly  dis- 


148  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS* 

The  good  Physician.  All  punishment  denied. 

ease  was  left  behind.  I  repeat  again  :  sin  is  an  evil, 
and  punishment  is  a  remedy,  and  it  is  a  poor  cause  of 
joy,  that  we  have  escaped  the  Good  Physician, e  who 
healeth  all  our  diseases.'  Better,  by  far,  submit  to  the 
caustic,  or  the  knife,  if  necessary,  than  bear  about  with 
us  a  gangrene  that  eateth  to  the  vitals." 

To  this  effect,  S.  R.  Smith  of  Albany  speaks,  (f  Mag. 
and  Adv.'  VIII.  218 ;) — "  However  immediate  and  tre- 
mendous the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  it  is  plainly 
designed  for  their  individual  good."  "  Every  moral  pain 
we  bear,  every  mental  suffering  we  endure  for  our  fol- 
lies and  our  crimes,  are  the  medicines  to  heal  the  dis- 
eases of  the  soul.  They  are  the  safe  and  finally-effec- 
tual prescriptions  which  wound  but  to  heal,  which  kill 
but  to  make  alive." 

What  now  becomes  of  the  oft-vaunted  boast  of  the 
Universalist,  that  he  alone,  of  all  the  sects,  believes  in 
the  full  punishment  of  sin  ?  If  we  admit  his  definition 
of  punishment,  it  is  even  so.  But  if  we  are  governed 
by  the  universally-received  sense  of  the  word,  as  well 
as  by  that  which  is  given  to  it  in  the  Bible,  it  becomes 
apparent  at  once,  that  this  theorist  denies  all  punish- 
ment ; — that  he  believes  in  the  justice  of  God,  only  so 
far  as  justice  consists  with  his  own  personal  good  in 
this  world,  and  his  perfect  unending  happiness  in  the 
world  to  come. 

In  order,  however,  to  establish  this  favorite  article  of 
their  faith  they  resort  to  the  most  unwarrantable  and 
unpardonable  wrestings  of  Scripture  from  its  obvious 
intent.  All  those  passages  which  speak  of  the  afflic- 


NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT.  149 

Who  are  children  of  God  1  A  large  church. 

tions  of  the  righteous  as  c/iastisements,  designed  for  the 
good  of  them  that  love  God,  and  in  which  there  is  an 
express  limitation  of  the  doctrine  to  those  who  love 
and  serve  God  in  sincerity  and  truth,  they  apply  to  all 
mankind  indiscriminately.  They  utterly  deny  that  the 
Bible  separates  mankind  into  two  distinct  classes. 
They  teach  their  disciples  to  believe  that  they,  and  all 
the  world  beside,  are  the  children  of  God,  in  the  sense 
in  which  that  phrase  is  used  in  the  word  of  God  j  and 
that  therefore  all  the  promises  are  unlimited. 

Among  the  '  Lecture-Sermons'  of  Mr.  Ballou,  is  one 
entitled,  'Jill  men  the  children  of  God  ;'  in  which  he 
declares,  (p.  204,)  that  "  the  children  mentioned  in 
Heb.ii.  14,comprehend  the  whole  human  family."  "And 
he  for  whom  are  all  things  and  by  whom  are  all  things, 
is  the  Father  of  these  children.  The  children  do  not 
destroy  this  relation  by  disobedience."  Again  he  says, 
(p.  209,)  "  This  is  the  church  which  Jesus  loved,  when 
it  was  unsanctified. — This  church  consists  of  every  man, 
or  the  whole  human  family."  The  same  thought  is 
repeated,  (p.  358) ;  "Ml  men  are,  therefore,  of  his 
church." 

Speaking  of  the  orthodox  views,  he  says,  (pp.  263, 
4, 5,)  "  The  way  in  which  this  subject  is  generally  held, 
supposes  that  there  is  one  class  of  men  who  are  exclu- 
sively righteous,  and  another  class  exclusively  wicked." 
Having  thus  perverted  the  orthodox  view  by  interpo- 
sing the  word  '  exclusively?  he  proceeds  to  deny  the 
correctness  of  their  position ; — "that  the  Scriptures — any 
where  give  support  to  the  notion  that  one  class  of  man- 
13* 


150  tTNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Not  two  classes  among  men.  Divine  relationship. 

kind  is  exclusively  righteous,  and  another  class  exclu- 
sively wicked,  is  by  no  means  acknowledged."  He 
then  proceeds,  as  if  he  had  disproved  the  statement  that 
the  scriptures  call  one  class  of  men  righteous,  in  dis- 
tinction from  another,  who  are  styled  wicked.  "  We 
find  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  in  the  same  individ- 
ual." "  The  habit  which  professed  Christians  have  so 
long  indulged,  of  thinking  and  speaking  of  the  wicked, 
as  a  class  of  people  distinct  from  themselves,  is  a  proof 
of  the  depravity  of  their  own  deceived  hearts."  To 
this  remark  it  may  be  added,  that  the  habit  which  this 
writer,  and  others  of  the  same  stamp,  have,  of  flying 
in  the  face  of  Scripture,  shows,  that  they  are  either  de- 
plorably ignorant  of  the  Bible,  or  the  most  palpable 
falsifiers  of  its  obvious  truths. 

The  origin  of  this  relation  of  all  mankind  to  God  as 
their  spiritual  Father,  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of 
W.  S.  Ballou,  of  Randolph,  Vermont,  as  they  appear 
in  the  '  Universalist  Union,'  (IV.  51.)  "  If  we  are  cre- 
ated in  the  image  of  God,  there  is  a  moral  relationship 
existing  between  ourselves  and  the  Father  of  our  spirits 
— a  chain  which  God  has  thrown  around  every  soul, 
which  forever  connects  them  to  his  own  throne." 
"  Now  on  this  fact  is  based  the  Scripture  declaration, 
that  we  are  '  the  children  of  God.' — When  we  are  in- 
formed, then,  that  we  are  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
we  have  the  assurance  that  we  are  forever  allied  to  a 
Father  in  heaven."  "  There  has  been  a  great  inquiry 
with  many,  whether  all  mankind  are  the  children  of 
God,  or  possess  by  nature  any  divine  principle  that  al- 


NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT.  151 

A  broad  distin.-ti  >n  Confounding  things  that  differ. 

lies  them  to  heaven. — The  professors  of  partial  creeds 
have  answered  it  in  the  negative,  and  have  proceeded 
to  cast  off  from  God  all  those  whom  they  viewed  in  the 
state  of  nature.  Now  it  is  unnecessary  to  state  that 
such  a  hypothesis  for  ever  absolves  the  sinner  from  any 
accountability  to  God. — All  that  is  necessary  to  settle 
this  inquiry — whether  all  are  the  children  of  God — is 
to  ascertain  whether  all  are  created  in  the  image  of  God. 
This  the  text  makes  certain." 

Now  who,  that  has  ever  read  ten  pages  of  the  word 
of  God,  has  not  discovered,  that  the  "  children  of  the 
devil"  are  not  the  "  children  of  God  ?"— that  it  shall 
be  well  with  the  righteous,  and  ill  with  the  wicked  ? — 
that  these  (the  wicked)  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment,  but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal  ? — that, 
in  short,  nearly  the  whole  book  of  Proverbs  is  construct- 
ed upon  this  manifest  distinction  ?  It  is  idle  to  say, 
that,  in  all  those  cases  where  these  two  characters  are 
spoken  of  in  contrast,  the  same  individual  is  referred  to. 
Which  part  of  the  individual  goes  away  into  everlast- 
ing punishment,  and  which  into  life  eternal  ?  The  as- 
sertion that  there  are  not  two  distinct  classes  of  man- 
kind spoken  of  in  Scripture,  to  the  one  of  which  are  ad- 
dressed the  promises,  and  to  the  other  the  warnings  and 
threats,  is  too  plainly  false  to  need  a  denial. 

By  thus  confounding  things  which  differ,  and  apply- 
ing to  all  mankind  passages  addressed  only  to  the 
righteous,  they  make  it  out  that  God  afflicts  men  only 
for  their  good,  and  that  suffering  has  not  in  fact,  in 
any  case  the  nature  of  punishment.  They  thus  deny, 


152  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

God's  great  concern.  Strange  language. 

that  God  is  any  thing  else  than  a  Father,  that  he  has 
any  right  to  cast  off  an  incorrigible  child,  or  that  he 
can  ever  cherish  any  thing  but  the  fullest  love  towards 
any  of  the  human  race.  They  represent  God  as  being, 
acting,  and  living  but  for  them  and  their  fellow-men  ; 
as  if  he  had  no  other  concern  than  to  gratify  and 
glorify  these  worms  of  the  dust. 

If  these  views  are  correct,  it  seems  very  strange  that 
the  Apostle  should  tell  his  brethren,  that  "  it  is  a  fear- 
ful thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God  ;"  or 
that  God  should  say,  "  I  will  render  vengeance  to  mine 
enemies,  and  will  reward  them  that  hate  me ;  God  shall 
cast  the  fury  of  his  wrath  upon  him  ;  He  will  repay 
fury  to  his  adversaries,  recompense  to  his  enemies ;  In- 
dignation and  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish  upon  eve- 
ry soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil ;  Fiery  indignation 
which  shall  devour  the  adversaries ;  The  wrath  of  God 
poured  out  without  mixture  into  the  cup  of  his  indigna* 
tion  ;  The  Lord  will  not  spare  him,  but  the  anger  of 
the  Lord  and  his  jealousy  shall  smoke  against  that  man, 
and  all  the  curses  that  are  written  in  this  book  shall  lie 
upon  him,  and  the  Lord  will  blot  out  his  name  from 
under  heaven  :" — Or  that  it  should  be  said,  that  "  the 
Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his 
mighty  angels  in  flaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on 
them  that  know  not  God — who  shall  be  punished  with 
everlasting  destruction."  Strange  language,  all  this, 
for  a  tender  father  to  use  towards  a  dear  child !  Which 
one  of  all  those,  who  insist  that  God  only  acts  towards 
man  in  the  character  of  a  Father,  ever  uses  language 


NO  SUCH  THING  AS  PUNISHMENT.  153 

A  death  blow  at  Christianity. 

so  full  of  fury,  or  would  say  to  his  child — '  It  is  a  fear- 
ful thing  to  fall  into  my  hands  ?" 

But  it  is  sufficient  merely  to  present  their  views. 
They  speak  for  themselves.  Their  anti-Christian  nature 
is  seen  at  once  ;  and  especially  in  the  fact,  that  they 
utterly  take  away  all  necessity  for  an  atonement  orpro- 
pitiation.  Man  would  be  wronged,  if  deprived  of  the 
healing  cup  of  fury  and  wrath.  God  is  already  well 
pleased  with  the  sinner.  Any  scheme,  therefore,  which 
proposes  to  deliver  the  sinner  from  the  sufferings  which 
he  deserves,  (and  such  is  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement,)  must  be  a  cruelty  to  the  sinner  himself, 
and  so  the  Bible  cannot  reveal  or  countenance  any  such 
doctrine.  These  views  thus  strike  a  death-blow  at  the 
very  vitals  of  Christianity. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

DENIAL    OF    THE   ATONEMENT. 

No  salvation  from  punishment,  or  deserved  sufferings — Christ 
is  not  a  Savior  in  this  sense — Views  of  Murray,  Winchester, 
Chauncy,  and  Huntington,  on  the  Atonement — Christ  saves 
no  one  from  endless  misery,  or  from  deserved  punishment — 
Nature  of  salvation  by  Christ — The  sufferings  of  Christ 
have  only  a  moral  effect — No  vicarious  Atonement — No  ac- 
counting for  the  Mosaic  sacrifices. 

"  These,  in  their  wisdom,  left 
The  light  reveal'd,  and  turn'd  to  fancies  wild^ 
Maintaining  loud,  that  ruin'd  helpless  man 
Needed  no  Savior." — POLLOK. 

THAT  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,"  is  orthodoxy — is  Christianity.  This  is  the 
peculiarity  of  the  Gospel.  This  is  its  power  and  glory. 
Take  this  away,  and  the  gospel  is  gone. 

But  what  is  Universalism  ?  A  scheme,  that  denies 
that  the  law  pronounces  a  single  curse  upon  the  trans- 
gressor— or  that  any  of  the  sufferings,  which  man  en- 
dures in  consequence  of  sin,  are  any  thing  more  than  a 
healing  and  merciful  medicine — or  that  these  sufferings 
can  be  removed  by  Christ  or  any  one  else.  These  are 
its  avowed  tenets.  What  room  is  there  here  for  any 
plan  of  salvation  ?  Why  is  not  the  scheme  just  as  per- 
fect without  Christ  as  with  him  ?  If  Christ  had  never 


DENIAL  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  155 

All  salvation  denied.  What  they  think  of  Christ. 

been  known  among  men,  as  he  is  now  unknown  by 
millions,  this  system  maintains,  that  none  would  have 
perished — none  would  have  gone  to  hell ;  all  would 
have  been  as  really  saved  from  punishment  in  a  future 
state  as  they  now  are. 

Universalism  therefore,  as  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
show,  is  a  bold  denial  of  any  salvation  from  the  penal- 
ty of  a  broken  law,  whether  by  Christ  or  any  thing 
else.  Instead  of  teaching  universal  salvation,  properly 
so  called,  IT  DENIES  ALL  SALVATION.  It  denies  that  Je- 
sus Christ  ever  did,  or  ever  will,  deliver  a  sinner  from  a 
single  consequence  of  his  sins,  or  that  such  a  deliver- 
ance would  be  either  righteous,  wise,  or  merciful. 

Since  the  claims  of  this  sect  to  be  regarded  as  Chris- 
tian must  be  determined  by  their  views  of  the  work 
and  person  of  Christ,  I  shall  now  bring  them  to  the 
test,  and  show  what  they  think  of  Christ. 

"  What  think  ye  of  Christ?  is  the  test, 

To  try  both  your  state,  and  your  scheme ; 
You  cannot  be  right  in  the  rest, 
Unless  you  think  rightly  of  him." 

Let  us,  then,  ascertain  if  we  can,  what  they  teach  in 
regard  to  the  work,  office,  and  nature,  of  Jesus  of  Na- 
zareth. That  Christ  is  the  Savior,  the  only  Savior,  of 
the  world,  every  believer  in  the  Bible  most  fully  admits ; 
and  none  more  so  than  the  Universalist,  at  least  in 
word.  But  let  the  question  be  put — "  What  do  you 
mean,  when  you  say — '  Christ  is  the  only  Savior  V — 
and  it  will  soon  be  seen,  that,  in  this  respect  as  in 
others,  they  attach  a  meaning  to  the  word  entirely 


156  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Christ  saves  from  no  punishment.  Views  of  Murray. 

different  from  that  in  common  use.  This  will  ap- 
pear in  illustrating  the  following  article  of  their 
creed,  viz. : 

XIII.     CHRIST   SAVES   NO   ONE   FROM   ANY   DESERVED 

SUFFERING. 

In  former  days,  when  Murray,  Winchester,  Chauncy, 
and  Huntington,  were  on  the  stage,  and  their  writings 
were  the  standards  of  Universalism,  such  a  doctrine,  as 
that  just  stated,  would  have  been  regarded  with  abhor- 
rence by  the  whole  sect.  The  sentiments  of  Mr.  Mur- 
ray are  thus  stated  by  the  Editor  of  his '  Life ;'  (pp.  279, 
'80.)  "  His  views  of  the  nature  of  salvation  differ  es- 
sentially from  those  now  entertained  by  Universalists. 
He  held  that  all  were  condemned  in  the  first  Adam  ; 
and  justified  by  the  vicarious  atonement  of  the  second, 
Christ.  He  held  to  a  complete  salvation  from  pun* 
ishment  through  the  merits  of  Christ, — an  idea,  which 
has  been  very  generally  abandoned  by  Universalists,  as 
well  as  by  many  of  other  denominations,  and  superseded 
by  the  more  rational  and  scriptural  doctrine  of  salvation 
from  sin  through  the  medium  of  truth  and  grace  as  com- 
municated by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Indeed  it  is  welt 
known,  that  the  method  by  which  he  proved  the  final 
salvation  of  all  men,  and  his  interpretations  of  Scrip- 
ture, differed  essentially  from  those  of  the  denomina- 
tion generally." 

Between  Mr.  Murray,  the  founder  of  American  Uni- 
versalism, and  his  degenerate  disciples,  it  is  thus  most 
plainly  confessed  there  is  but  little,  or  no,  agreement, 


I >l  MAL  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  157 

Latitudinnrianism.  Views  of  Winchester. 

in  respect  to  the  gospel-plan.  Almost  the  only  thing 
in  which  they  agree  is  the  final  *  result.'  This  is  the 
chain  that  binds  them  all  in  one  bundle.  Latitudina- 
rian  in  the  extreme,  they  seem  to  care  not  at  all  what  a 
man  believes  on  any  point,  if  he  only  admits  that  all 
will  be  happy  at  last.  If  Mr.  Murray  were  now  to  re- 
visit the  earth,  with  the  same  sentiments  that  he  had 
when  in  the  body,  he  would  reprobate  our  Modern 
Universalists  as  but  little  better  than  infidels.  Of  them 
he  would  say,  with  even  more  emphasis,  than  he  said 
once  of  those  who  held  to  purgatorial  satisfaction — 
"  In  fact,  (<  Life,'  p.  267,)  /  know  no  persons  further 
from  Christianity,  genuine  Christianity,  than  such  Uni- 
versalists." 

Winchester,  though  differing  much  from  Murray, 
most  fully  attributed  man's  deliverance  from  deserved 
sufferings  to  the  death  of  Christ.  In  his  poem,  called 
"  The  process  and  empire  of  Christ  from  his  birth  to 
the  end  of  the  Mediatorial  kingdom,"  he  represents  the 
crucified  Redeemer  as  saying, 

"  For  all  your  sins  my  blood  hath  now  nton'd, 
And  I  am  come  to  comfort  all  your  hearts, 
rdon,  love,  and  pow'r, 
Redemption  and  salvation  I  proclaim  ;" 

and  then  represents  him  as  going  on  a  mission  to  hell 
to  "  to  the  spirits  in  prison," — to  release  them  from  the 
awful  sufferings  brought  upon  them  by  their  sins.  Of 
these  sufferings,  he  says  (B.  X.) 


14 


158  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Views  of  Winchester,  Chauncy,  and  Huntington. 

"  What  are  all  the  pains  and  tortures  borne 
By  martyrs,  criminals,  and  wretched  slaves, 
Fires,  racks,  whips,  chains,  and  deaths  of  ev'ry  sort, 
That  ever  men  have  felt,  or  did  inflict, 
Compar'd  to  what  those  wretches  must  endure, 
Who  to  the  burning  lake  shall  be  condenm'd  ?" 

"  Combine  the  pain  of  hunger,  sharpest  thirst, 
The  keenest  sense  of  shame  and  deep  disgrace, 
The  pungent  tortures  of  a  guilty  mind,  .  .   . 
And  add  to  these  the  real  pains  of  fire  ; 
Suppose  a  man  in  soul  and  body  form'd 
In  such  a  manner  as  to  feel  the  whole, 
Without  the  least  abatement,  all  at  once  : 
Think  what  his  pain  and  misery  must  be  ! 
This  is  the  real  state  of  those  who  fall 
Under  the  dreadful  sentence  of  the  Lord." 

That  Dr.  Chauncy  held  the  same  sentiments  is  ap- 
parent throughout  his  works.  "  Salvation  from  wrath 
is  one  thing  essentially  included  in  that  justification 
which  is  the  result  of  true  faith."  («  Salv.  of  All,' 
p.  37.) 

I  have  elsewhere  shown  that  Huntington  "  held  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  whereby  Christ  suffered 
for  us  the ,  penalty  of  the  divine  law,  our  guilt  having 
been  set  to  his  account,  as  our  federal  head  and  spon- 
sor, and  his  obedience  in  like  manner  transferred  to  us ; 

a  salvation  for  man  solely  on  the  ground  of  free 
grace  and  mercy."  ('  Mod.  Hist.,  p.  384.) 

But  these  views  are  now  antiquated.  No  Univer- 
salist  preacher  of  our  day  has  any  idea  of  such  a  de- 
liverance from  deserved  sufferings.  It  is  well  known 
that  all  our  Universalists  expect  a  final  and  full  de- 
liverance from  all  sufferings.  But  it  is  not  so  well 


DENIAL  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  159 

Limitation  of  salvation.  No  salvation  from  future  wrath. 

known  on  what  grounds  this  expectation  is  based. 
Universalists  are  much  accustomed,  in  controversy,  to 
appeal,  in  support  of  their  hope  that  all  mankind  will 
go  to  heaven  at  last,  to  those  passages  which  speak  of 
Christ  as  the  Savior  of  the  world,  and  as  dying  for  all 
— tasting  death  for  every  man,  and  the  like.  But  no 
Universalist,  at  all  acquainted  with  the  prevailing 
scheme,  believes  that  these  passages  have  any  thing  to 
do  with  the  matter.  The  salvation  of  which  the  sacred 
writers  speak  they  understand,  as  taking  place  in,  and 
limited  in  its  effects  to,  this  world.  Of  course  these 
declarations  of  universal  salvation  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  question, — <  will  all  mankind  be  happy  at 
last' 

This  will  be  better  understood  by  attending  to  the 
following  explanations  of  their  views  from  their  own 
pens.  They  begin  with  affirming  that  Christ  saves  no 
one  from  endless  misery.  Take  the  following  exam- 
ples from  Mr.  Ballou;  ('  Lecture-Sermons,'  pp.  13, 
244 ;) — "  No  such  penalty  of  endless  misery  was  ever 
connected  with  the  divine  law  of  heaven;  and — Jesus  did 
not  come  into  the  world  to  save  sinners  from  any  such 
penalty."  "  The  arguments  to  which  we  have  attend- 
ed are  designed  to  show  that  the  common  notion  of 
saving  mankind  from  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God  ii\ 
the  eternal  world,  is  without  foundation  either  in  Scrip- 
ture or  reason."  \ 

Of  course,  having  denied,  that  man  was  ever  expos- 
ed to  pndless  misery,  they  cannot  admit,  that  Christ 
saves  them  from  that  which  they  never  would  or  could 


160  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Christ's  sufferings  nothing  to  do  with  a  future  state. 

have  suffered.  It  is  not  therefore,  because  Christ  is  the 
Savior  of  the  world,  that  no  one  of  the  human  race  will 
be  doomed  to  endless  punishment.  Christ's  salvation 
has  nothing  to  do  with  this  matter,  as  they  think,  one 
way  or  the  other. 

Thay  also  affirm  that  Christ  saves  no  one  from,  any 
deserved  punishment  either  here  or  hereafter.  "  No," 
says  Mr.  Ballou,  ('  L.  Sermons,'  p.  13,)  "  nor  did  he 
come  into  the  world  to  save  the  sinner  from  the  jnin- 
ishment  of  his  sins."  "  The  fact  is,"  so  he  tells  us, 
('  Expositor,'  I.  343,  7,)  neither  Jesus  nor  his  apostles 
ever  intimated  that  mankind  were  in  danger  of  such  a 
state  of  torment  in  the  future  world,  as  is  represented 
by  our  divines,  or  that  God  had  made  any  provision  to 
save  us  from  such  a  calamity"  "  The  Savior  taught 
no  such  doctrine.  He  never  intimated  that  his  suffer- 
ings were  necessary  to  save  men  from  punishment  in 
the  future  world,  nor  that  it  was  necessary  that  men 
should  believe  in  him  for  any  such  purpose." 

He  will,  by  no  means,  admit  that  what  Christ  did 
in  this  world  had  any  efficacy  in  securing  to  any  of  the 
human  family  the  happiness  of  heaven,  or  that  it  had 
any  bearing  on  our  future  condition  in  another  state  of 
being.  So  he  tells  us,  (c  L.  Sermons,'  pp.  16,  17, 
242,  3 ;) — "  Was  there  ever  a  jepresentation  more  er- 
roneous, than  that  which  has,  for  ages,  led  men  to  be- 
lieve that  there  was  a  divine  wrath  in  God,  from 
which  Jesus  came  to  save  sinners !"  "  The  common 
doctrine,  which  teaches  us  that  Christ  Jesus  came  into 
this  world  to  save  us  in  another  world,  is  contrary  to  all 


DENIAL  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  161 

Getting  an  interest  in  Christ.  Mistake  about  salvaton. 

the  representations  which  are  found  in  the  Scriptures." 
"  And  you  will  further  observe,  that  there  is  just  as 
much  propriety  in  exhorting  people  to  get  an  interest 
in  Adam,  so  that  they  may  inherit  from  him  the  natural 
faculties  of  the  body,  as  to  exhort  us  to  get  an  interest 
in  Christ." 

"  It  is  an  error  of  extensive  magnitude  to  attribute 
to  the  manifestation,  or  appearance,  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  what  he  did  in  our  imrld,  the  cause  of  that  gift 
which  was  made  sure  to  us,  in  him,  before  the  world 
began."  "  It  seems  that  all,  which  the  Savior  did,  was 
designed  as  a  manifestation  of  those  divine  things 
which  our  heavenly  Father  had  given  us  before  the 
world  began." 

The  same  views  are  presented  by  Hosea  Ballou, 
jun.,  in  the  «  Expositor,-  (IV.  34  ;)  "  The  notion  for- 
merly current — at  least  the  vulgar  one — was,  that  to 
be  saved,  in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  phrase,  is  to  be 
rescued  from  exposure, — and  received  into  heaven.  We 
suppose  it  unnecessary  to  show,  in  our  pages,  that  this 
is  not  the  meaning.  Few  Universalists,  and  probably 
none  of  our  readers,  regard  it  as  such,  or  admit  that 
man  needs  salvation  from  a  doom  which  they  do  not 
believe  was  ever  denounced."  Yet  the  same  writer 
admits  that  it  is  "  the  common  sentiment  that  the  term 
*  salvation,'  in  its  religious  use,  has  always  a  direct  and 
immediate  reference  to  our  final  condition  after  death." 
And  such  has,  for  so  long  a  time,  been  the  established 
import  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  salvation,  that  he  is 
constrained  to  ask,  "  Does  not  this  idea  enter,  more  or 


162  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT    IS. 

No  satisfaction  to  justice.  In  what  salvation  consists. 

less  into  the  habitual  impressions  of  Universalists  them- 
selves, so  as  to  affect  their  language  and  their  forms  of 
argument  ?" 

We  are  informed  by  Mr.  Williamson,  ('  Exp.  of 
Un.'  pp.  14, 16,)  that  "  the  Scriptures  certainly  forbid  the 
idea  that  it  was  any  part  of  the  object  of  a  Savior's 
mission,  to  save  men  from  the  unmerciful  wrath  of 
God.  Neither  did  Jesus  come  to  save  from  the  just 
'punishment  of  sin,  by  satisfying  the  divine  justice,  and 
suffering  the  penalty  due  the  sinner  in  his  room  and 
stead."  "  It  was  not  necessary  for  Christ  to  come  into 
the  world  to  save  men  from  a  future  endless  hell,  as  a 
penalty  of  the  divine  law,  for  the  good  and  sufficient 
reason,  that  no  such  penalty  was  ever  annexed  to  that 
law." 

The  nature  of  that  salvation  of  which  Christ  is  the 
author  they  represent  as  but  little  understood,  save 
among  themselves.  "  In  discussing  the  nature  of  sal- 
vation," says  O.  A.  Skinner,  ('Un.  111.  and  Def.'  p.  258,) 
"  it  may  be  well  to  ask — '  What  are  the  evils  under 
which  we  are  suffering,  and  to  which  we  are  expos- 
ed.' The  common  opinion  is,  that  we  are  exposed 
to  God's  vindictive  wrath,  and  to  a  state  of  endless  pun- 
ishment.— We  do  not  need  salvation  from  these,  because 
not  in  any  sense  exposed  to  them."  "  Salvation, 
(p.  262,)  is  deliverance  from  ignorance,  sin  and  death. 
It  is  to  be  taught  of  God,  sanctified  by  the  truth,  and 
rendered  immortal." 

"  Salvation,"  says  Mr.  Ballou,  ('  Lecture-Sermons,' 
p.  84,)  "  consists  in  knowing  God,  which  makes  it  evi- 


DENIAL  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.  163 

Nature  of  «al .  Evil*  from  which  Christ  saves  . 

dent  that  the  nature  of  God  is  salvation.  As  fast, 
therefore,  as  we  advance  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  we 
enjoy  the  rich  provisions  which  are  made  for  all  peo- 
ple." Again,  (p.  237,)  "  This  passage  very  plainly 
shows  us  the  nature  of  that  salvation  of  which  our  text 
speaks.  It  is  a  salvation  from  error,  deception,  igno- 
rance, and  all  their  evils,  to  truth,  knowledge,  un- 
derstanding, and  all  their  blessings." — "  The  salvation, 
(p.  244,)  which  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  effects  for 
us,  is  a  salvation  from  our  sins,  from  our  wanderings, 
from  the  darkness  of  our  deceived  minds,  from  all  un- 
cleanness,  to  righteousness,  to  reconciliation  to  God,  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  to  holiness  of  life ;" 
but  not  "from  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God  in  the  eter- 
nal world" 

"  Universalists  believe,"  says  Mr.  Lewis,  ('  Mag. 
and  Adv.*  VHI.  p.  18,)  "  that  salvation  is  a  deliverance 
from  sin,  not  deserved  punishment."  Mr.  Williamson, 
however,  confines  this  kind  of  salvation  to  believers, 
and  calls  it  conditional ;  while  he  speaks  of  another 
that  he  calls  unconditional.  "  In  what  sense,"  he 
asks,  ('  Exposition,'  p.  167,)  "  is  God  the  Savior  of  all 
men  ?  Or  what  are  the  evils  from  which  he  saves 
them  1  I  answer,  from  the  power  of  death  and  the 
darkness  of  the  grave,  through  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead."  But  in  neither  of  these  does  he  admit  that 
Christ  saved  man  from  the  least  deserved  punishment. 
Indeed  he  says  expressly,  (p.  65,)  as  I  have  elsewhere 
shown,  "  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  object,  either  of  the 
labors,  sufferings,  or  death  of  Christ,  to  open  a  way  by 


164  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Effect  of  Christ's  death  only  moral.  The  Atonement  exploded. 

which  the  guilty  could  evade  the  rod  of  his  Father's 
justice."  Again,  he  says,  (p.  52,)  "  The  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ — were  not  designed  to  placate  the 
wrath,  or  satisfy  the  justice  of  God,  and  thus  open  a 
way  for  the  guilty  to  escape  the  just  punishment  of 
their  sins." 

Thus  confidently  do  they  affirm,  that  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth neither  did,  nor  could,  do  or  suffer  any  thing  by 
which  a  single  human  being  either  has  been,  or  will 
be,  delivered  from  endless  misery,  or  any  punishment 
either  in  this  world,  or  in  the  world  to  come.  What 
he  did,  was  the  work  of  a  man ;  the  effect  of  his 
work  was  only  a  moral  effect.  It  was  designed  to 
make  men  better  not  in  another  world,  but  in  this ;  by 
the  moral  power  of  his  instructions  and  life  to  dissuade 
men  from  yielding  to  the  dictates  of  the  flesh,  and  to 
persuade  them  to  follow  the  better  law  of  the  mind — in 
other  words,  to  induce  them  to  cease  doing  evil,  and 
learn  to  do  well. 

The  reader  will  at  once  see,  that  this  view  of  the 
case  entirely  "  explodes"  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
ATONEMENT.  There  is  no  room  here  for  the  idea,  that 
Christ,  a  superior  being,  took  the  place  of  man,  and 
suffered  in  his  stead,  as  his  substitute,  for  the  sake  of 
the  guilty — the  just  for  the  unjust.  Their  denial  of 
this  doctrine  is  plain,  direct,  and  unqualified.  They 
take  no  pains  to  conceal  their  abhorrence  of  it. 
It  is  cruel,  unjust,  unreasonable,  horrid,  absurd. 
Since  the  "  explosion"  of  the  Atonement  by  Mr.  Bal- 
lou,  some  forty  years  ago,  they  can  see  with  perfect 


DENIAL    OF    THE    ATONEMENT.  165 

Blood  of  Christ.  Old  Jewish  notion. 

clearness,  that  no  such  doctrine  was  ever  taught  by 
Christ  or  his  apostles,  and  they  are  amazed  that  any 
man  can  be  such  a  simpleton  as  to  believe  in  it. 

"  Christians  have  for  a  long  time  believed,"  says 
Mr.  Ballbu,  («  Atonement,'  p.  122,)  "  that  the  temporal 
death  of  Christ  made  an  atonement  for  sin,  and  that 
the  literal  blood  of  the  man  who  was  crucified  has 
efficacy  to  cleanse  from  guilt ;  but  surely  this  is  car- 
nality,  and  carnal  mindedness."  I  suppose  that  among 
these  "  Christians,"  he  includes  one  John,  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  who  is  known  to  have  believed  and  taught 
that  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  deanseth  us  from  all 
sin." 

Again,  he  says,  ('  L.  Sermons,'  p.  315,)  "  Christ  did 
not  die  for  us,  that  we  might  avoid  condemnation  if 
we  commit  sin,  nor  did  he  suffer  for  us,  that  we  might 
not  be  punished  for  faults  if  we  commit  them. — In 
place  of  his  suffering  in  our  room  and  stead,  as  our 
erroneous  doctrines  have  taught  us,  he  will  render  unto 
every  man  according  to  his  works."  By  "  erroneous 
doctrines"  in  this  passage,  he  may  have  reference  to  an 
old  Jewish  notion,  held  by  one  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz, 
who  is  generally  understood  to  have  taught,  respecting 
the  Messiah,  that  "  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgres- 
sions, he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the  chastise- 
ment of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  by  his  stripes  we 
are  healed.  Jill  we,  like  sheep,  have  gone  astray,  and 
the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquities  of  us  all." 
What  a  pity  that  Isaiah  could  not  have  enjoyed  the  lu- 
minous teachings  °f  Hnsea,  the  Rabbi  of  the  West  * 


166  UN1VERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Corruption  of  Christianity.  Absurdity  of  substitution. 


Mr.  Kneeland  adopted  the  views  of  Mr.  Ballou  most 
fully,  and  sketched  with  a  bolder  hand,  a  more  finished 
portraiture  of  the  new  doctrine.  "  There  has  been 
(£  Lectures,'  pp.  108,  '9,)  no  occasion  for  an  infinite 
sacrifice,  nor  for  any  sacrifice,  to  divine  justice,  in  order 
to  open  a  way  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  reconcil- 
iation or  salvation  of  the  sinner.  I  am  fully  convinced, 
that  the  idea  of  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  or  to 
appease  almighty  wrath,  is  a  corruption  of  Christianity, 
which  crept  in  gradually,  writh  other  gross  absurdities, 
some  of  which  have  been  already  exploded ;  (i.  e.  by 
Christians  in  general,  especially  in  this  country;)  but 
others  still  remain." 

Having  shown  what  he  regards  as  "  the  scriptural 
doctrine  and  nature  of  the  atonement"  he  says,  (p. 
110,)  "  In  all  this,  however,  we  see  nothing  of  the  na- 
ture of  a  substitute,  suffering  in  our  room  and  stead  ; 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  a  sacrifice  offered  up  by  the 
sinner ;  nothing  in  the  nature  of  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice,  without  which  God  could  not  be  just  and  yet 
forgive  sin,  or  be  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth ;  no- 
thing like  cancelling  an  awful  debt,  and  delivering  the 
sinner  from  deserved  wrath  and  vengeance."  He  then 
proceeds  (p.  114,)  to  the  work  "  of  exposing  the  glar- 
ing absurdity  of  considering  the  salvation  of  sinners 
to  be  a  salvation  from  infinite  and  deserved  punishment, 
which  the  sinner  justly  demerited  in  sinning  against  an 
infinite  Jehovah."  And  then  concludes,  (p.  116,) 
"  may  God  pardon  my  error,  if  it  be  one,  when  I  say — 
there  was  no  np.c.essi.ty  fnr  the.  suffering  of  Christ,  a*  a 
satisfaction  to  divine  justice  " 


DENIAL   OF   THE    ATONEMENT.  167 

A  OMMt  absurd  dogma.  A  great  disservice. 

Once  more,  he  remarks,  (pp.  71, 72,)  that, "  the  doc- 
trine which  teaches  that  God  could  not  consistently  with 
his  character  forgive  sin,  until  a  satisfaction  had  been 
made  to  his  divine  justice  by  suffering  humanity,  (an 
expression  which  I  use  to  signify  all  that  justice  requir- 
ed of  the  sinner  to  suffer,  or  all  that  Christ  endured,)  is 
a  doctrine  no  where  contained  in  the  Bible,  and  is  as 
repugnant  to  reason  and  sound  sense  as  it  would  have 
been  awful  in  its  consequences,  admitting  this  sup- 
posed satisfaction  had  never  been  obtained." 

The  common  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  Mr.  Skin- 
ner of  Utica  classes  ('  Mag.  and  Adv.'  VII.  279,)  among 
"the  absurdest  dogmas  that  ever  man  believed,  and 
which  had  their  origin  among  the  darkest  ages  the 
church  ever  witnessed."  He  adds,  that  such  an  atone- 
ment, "  so  far  from  being  a  satisfaction  to  justice,  would 
have  been  a  most  flagrant  and  eternal  violation  of  every 
principle  of  justice"  The  younger  Ballou,  in  an  article 
on  "  the  sufferings  of  Christ,"  says,  ('  Exp.'  II.  1 16,)  "  It 
will  be  seen  at  once,  that  they  cannot  be  regarded  in 
the  light  of  a  substitute  for  the  penalty  of  our  sins." 

We  learn  from  Mr.  Skinner  of  Boston,  ('  Un.  111.  and 
Def.'  pp.  110,  113,  127,)  that  "  CK  not  fulfil 

the  law,  by  enduring  its  penalty  in  the  place  of  the 
sinner.  Neither  is  it  necessary  to  the  sinner's  salva- 
tion, tfiat  any  one  should  suffer  as  a  substitute. — Every 
man  must  suffer  in  his  own  person  all  that  the  law 
threatens  ;  and  for  Jesus  to  take  the  place  of  the  sin- 
ner would  be  doing  him  the  highest  disservice." 
"  Christ  does  not  die  as  a  substitute,  to  release  us  from 


168  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT    IS. 

An  outrage  on  justice.  Bloody  sacrifices 

the  punishment  due  to  our  sins. — This  system  has  no 
foundation : — it  is  entirely  wrong :  all  its  essential  parts 
are  erroneous."  "  The  system  of  vicarious  atonement, 
is  not  the  system  of  the  Bible.  Every  part  of  it  is 
wrong." 

Not  less  positive  is  Mr.  Williamson.  He  would 
have  us  believe,  ('  Exp.  of  Univ.'  pp.  43,  44,  52,)  that 
"  the  whole  system  of  vicarious  atonement  is  wrong 
— an  outrage  upon  all  justice  and  right,  and,  as  such, 
is  pronounced  by  the  voice  of  inspiration,  an  abom- 
ination in  the  sight  of  the  Lord.  That — Christ  died 
a  vicarious  sacrifice,  to  appease  the  wrath,  satisfy  the 
justice,  or  secure  the  favor  of  God,  and  the  escape  of 
the  guilty,  is  most  unequivocally  denied. — My  objec- 
tions to  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement  are,  that  it 
is  unjust  in  theory,  impossible  in  fact,  and  pernicious  in 
practice"  "  A  sentiment  unfounded  in  reason,  scripture, 
or  fact."  What  more  could  an  infidel  have  said  ? 

Let  these  examples  suffice,  to  show  how  utterly  An- 
ti-Christian is  this  whole  scheme.  While  it  denies 
what  is  commonly  called  the  "  Atonement,"  it  never 
grapples  with  the  arguments  by  which  that  doctrine  is 
vindicated  and  established.  True,  the  first  book  that 
led  the  way  to  the  adoption  of  Modern  Universalism, 
was  a  '  Treatise  on  Atonement,'  by  H.  Ballou.  In 
such  a  work  we  might  expect  that  the  system  of  bloody 
sacrifices,  as  instituted  and  enjoined  by  God  himself, 
and  which  for  so  many  ages,  seemed  an  indispensable 
part  of  the  divine  worship  on  earth,  would  have  been 
thoroughly  discussed.  But  no.  There  is  scarcely  an 


NO    SUCH   THING   AS    PUNISHMENT.  169 

nfices.  Not  expiatory. 

allusion  to  it  in  the  whole  discussion.  It  would  not 
have  been  known  from  this  book  that  there  ever  was 
such  a  system.  The  same  is  true  of  all,  or  nearly  all, 
the  publications  of  the  sect,  which  have  come  under  my 
eye.  The  subject  appears  to  have  been  most  carefully 
avoided.  I  have  found  but  one  instance  in  which  there 
is  even  an  attempt  to  meet  the  difficulty. 

In  the  '  Universalist  Expositor,'  for  November,  1838, 
there  is  an  article  by  S.  R.  Smith  of  Albany,  on  "  the 
Old  Testament  doctrine  of  Sacrifice."  It  is  there 
maintained,  (pp.  394,  418,  424,)  "  that  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  the  legal  sacrifices  had,  or  were  designed  to 
have,  any  influence  upon  the  Deity,  or  any  bearing  upon 
the  credit  of  his  law. — They  appear  rather  to  have 
been  required  as  the  symbols  of  the  temper  of  mind — 
the  tokens  of  the  moral  feelings  of  the  offerer."  Of 
the  atonement  and  sin-offerings  he  says,  "  Both  were 
palpably  designed  for  man — to  remind  him  of  what  he 
owed  to  his  fellow-man,  to  keep  alive  the  principles  of 
purity  and  integrity  in  .his  own  heart,  and  to  cherish 
the  feelings,  and  direct  the  spirit,  of  religion  and  devo- 
tion to  God."  "  The  conclusion  is  forced  upon  us, 
that,  however  proper  and  useful  to  man  they  were,  the 
Deity  was  never  influenced  nor  affected  by  them  ;  and 
that  he  neither  became  more  gracious  for  their  obser- 
vance, nor  less  benignant  on  account  of  their  omis- 
sion." 

In  this  manner,  he  endeavours  to  show,  that  these  sa- 
ri itices   had   no  expiatory  meaning.     But  throughout 
the  article,  there  is  not  the  least  attempt  to  account  for 
15 


170  UNIVERSALISM   AS  IT  IS. 

Requirement  of  blood.  Mysterious  silence. 

the  fact  that  "  without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remis- 
sion." He  does  not  tell  us  why  fqr  so  many  ages  the 
blood  of  innocent  animals  flowed  in  ceaseless  streams, 
and  was  'demanded  by  a  God  of  goodness  and  mercy. 
Nor  could  he  have  shown  it,  except  as  Paul  has  done 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  And  what  is  even  yet 
more  remarkable,  in  the  whole  investigation  of  thirty- 
five  pages,  there  is  not  an  allusion,  save  to  the  amount 
of  half  a  page  near  the  close,  to  that  masterly  exposi- 
tion of  the  ancient  sacrifices,  and  their  reference  to  that 
of  Christ,  which  is  found  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews ! 
Why  this  silence — this  apparent  unacquaintance  with 
these  matters  1  Have  we  not  in  this  very  fact,  a  plain 
confession  of  the  weakness  of  their  system  ? 

But  the  question  will  most  naturally  arise  in  the  rea- 
der's mind, "  In  what  light  do  they  regard  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  1"  An  answer  to  this  will  be  given  in  the 
next  chapter. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR. 

No  peculiarity  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ — Atonement  the 
work  not  of  Christ,  but  of  the  sinner — Christ  suffered  not  as 
much  as  many  others  ;  and  in  the  same  sense  as  his  apostles 
did — The  nature  of  his  sufferings  the  same  with  theirs — 
He  saved  the  world,  just  as  the  American  revolutionary 
fathers  saved  their  country — Agreement  with  Thomas  Paine 
— Christ  only  saves  men  from  deserving  punishment — He  is 
not  therefore  the  Savior  of  the  whole  world — Specimens  of 
false  reasoning  from  the  fact  that  Christ  died  for  all. 

"  Ye  brainless  wits  !  yp  haptiz'd  infidels! 

Ye  worse  for  mending !  wash'd  to  fouler  stains ! 
The  ransom  was  paid  down;  the  fund  of  heav'n, 
Heav'ns  inexhaustible,  exhausted  fund 
Amazing  and  amaz'd,  pour'd  forth  the  price, 
All  price  beyond." — YOUNG. 

THE  sufferings  and  death  of  the  author  of  Christian- 
ity constitute  the  chief  theme  of  the  epistolary  remains 
of  his  apostles.  They  spake  of  his  blood,  as  that,  to 
which  they  and  their  brethren  owed  their  whole  sal- 
vation.— "  We  have  redemption  .through  his  blood ; 
the  church  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood  ;  in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his 
blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  being  now  justified 
by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through 


172  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Salvation  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  Christ's  sufferings  not  singular. 

him  5  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his 
Son ;  having,  therefore,  boldness  to  enter  into  the  ho- 
liest by  the  blood  of  Jesus."  These  forms  of  expres- 
sion occur  with  great  frequency  in  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures. 

In  what  light  are  these  declarations  to  be  regarded  ? 
Do  they  attribute  to  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ 
any  peculiar  efficacy  ?  Such  has  been  the  almost  uni- 
form opinion  of  the  Christian  world  until  latterly. 
There  are  those,  who  deny  that  we  owe  our  everlast- 
ing happiness  to  what  Christ  endured  on  our  account, 
and  who  say,  that  there  was  no  more  peculiarity  in  the 
sufferings  of  Jesus  than  in  those  of  Peter  and  Paul. 
Such  are  our  Universalists.  They  teach  that 

XIV.  THERE  WAS  NOTHING  PECULIAR  IN  CHRIST'S  DEATH. 
The  Christian  reader,  who  has  been  accustomed  to 
regard  this  sect  as  a  branch  of  the  family  of  Christ, 
and  to  rank  their  ministers  among  the  Christian  clergy, 
will  hardly  be  prepared  to  see  the  Redeemer  thrust 
into  the  common  rank  of  martyrs  and  confessors,  whose 
blood  flowed  merely  because  they  were  overpowered 
by  their  persecutors,  and  loved  their  faith  more  dearly 
than  life.  Mr.  Ballou  finds  fault  with  us,  for  over-ra- 
ting these  sufferings.  "  It  does  not  appear,"  he  says, 
(c  L.  Sermons,'  p.  177,)  "  from  the  Savior's  speech 
here  recited,  that  his  own  sufferings  were  of  that  kind 
or  degree  that  has  been  represented  by  Christian  doc- 
tors. They  have  supposed  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  far  beyond  any  possible  comparison,  even  greater 


SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR.  173 

Christ  died  as  a  testimony.  Christ  and  his  apostles  suffered  alike. 

than  we  conceive,  and  that  this  rendered  them  effica- 
cious with  his  Father,  to  procure  our  pardon  of  sin." 
In  the  *  Treatise  on  Atonement,'  he  says,  (p.  107,) 
that  "  God  never  called  for  a  sacrifice  to  reconcile 
himself  to  man ;  but  loved  man  so  that  he  was  pleased 
to  bruise  his  Son  for  our  good,  to  give  him  to  die,  in 
attestation  of  love  to  sinners.  The  belief,  that  the  great 
Jehovah  was  offended  with  his  creatures  to  that  degree 
that  nothing  but  the  death  of  Christ,  or  the  endless 
misery  of  mankind,  could  appease  his  anger,  is  an  idea 
that  has  done  more  injury  to  the  Christian  religion, 
than  the  writings  of  all  its  opposers  for  many  centu- 
ries." "  To  believe  in  any  other  atonement,"  he  fur- 
ther adds,  (p.  123,)  "  than  the  putting  off  the  old  man 
with  his  deeds,  and  the  putting  on  of  the  new  man, — is 
carnal-mindedness  and  is  death." 

In  these  passages,  he  first  implies  that  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  were  not. much,  if  any,  greater  than  others 
experience,  and  then  states  that  his  death  was  merely 
an  attestation  of  God's  love  to  man,  that  God  enter- 
tains no  such  displeasure  against  sinful  men  as  to  make 
an  expiation  necessary,  and  that  the  only  atonement 
possible  is  a  change  of  heart. 

In  Kneeland's  Lectures,  (p.  74,)  we  find  the  follow- 
ing statement :  "  The  apostles  considered  their  suffer- 
ings as  filling  up  the  measure  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ ;  and  in  as  much  as  they  were  so,  for  aught  we 
can  know  to  the  contrary,  (and  Mr.  Kneeland  was  a 
very  learned  man,  they  all  said  in  his  day,)  "  there  was 
the  same  merit  in  them.  And  hence,  we  are  assured, 
15* 


174  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Their  merit  the  same.  The  central  gallows. 

they  will  meet  with  the  same  reward  !"  The  same 
merit  in  the  death  of  Paul  that  there  was  in  the  death 
of  Christ  ?  And  the  same  reward  too  ?  If  the  man 
were  not  already  an  infidel  of  the  vilest  kind,  I  should 
certainly  expect  that  he  was  on  the  very  point  of 
trampling  the  Bible  under  his  feet. 

Hear 'him  again.  "  For  aught  I  can  see,  (pp.  116, 
117,) — God  could  just  as  consistently  forgive  sin  before 
[the  death  of  Christ,]  as  since ;  neither  does  he  now 
forgive  sin,  on  account  of,  or  with  the  least  reference  to, 
the  sufferings  of  Christ ;  any  more  than  he  does  on 
account  of  the  sufferings  of  the  apostles,  or  any  one  else 
who  has  suffered  in  the  same  cause."  I  should  not 
have  made  these  references  to  Mr.  Kneeland,  were  it 
not  that  the  volume  of  his  Lectures,  from  which  these 
extracts  have  been  taken,  have  from  their  first  publi- 
cation been  regarded  with  the  utmost  favor  by  the  sect, 
and  at  one  time  thought  to  be  the  most  complete  vin- 
dication, then  extant,  of  their  peculiar  views. 

Let  us  hear  from  Mr.  Ballou  in  his  old  age.  He  has 
grown  somewhat  wiser,  perhaps,  in  thirty  years,  or 
since  he  wrote  and  first  published  on  the  Atonement. 

"  We  really  do  not  comprehend,"  he  says,  ((  Ex- 
positor,' I.  170,)  "  how  it  is  that  our  heavenly  Father 
cannot  forgive  the  sins  of  his  own  children,  without 
doing  it  in  pursuance  of  such  a  sacrifice,  as  the  execu- 
ting of  an  Infinite  being  on  a  gallows  erected  in  the 
centre  of  the  Universe."  "  Nor  can  we  understand 
(p.  171,)  why  our  heavenly  Father  could,  with  any 
more  propriety,  pardon  us  after  such  an  unaccountable 


SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR.  175 

Christ  died  as  a  martyr.  Others  suffer  as  much. 

execution  than  before.  Such  an  execution  could  not, 
as  we  can  see,  alter  our  moral  condition."  "  That  the 
Scriptures  maintain,  (p.  172,)  that  men  are  redeemed  by 
the  sufferings  and  blood  of  Christ,  in  a  sense  which  we 
can  understand,  and  on  a  just  principle,  on  which  it  is 
the  Christian's  duty  to  lay  down  his  own  life,  if  called 
so  to  do,  we  did  not  know  that  any  who  profess 
Christianity  deny. — The  sufferings  which  Jesus  en- 
dured, and  tJie  sufferings  which  his  apostles  and  disci- 
ples encountered,  were  all  in  the  same  cause,  and  requi- 
red for  the  same  end." 

We  are  thus  told,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  in  no 
sense  necessary  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  that  it1  does 
not,  and  could  not  affect  our  moral  condition  at  all, 
that  it  was  no  more  necessary  than  the  death  of  any 
other  human  being  in  like  circumstances. as  a  man,  and 
that  it  was  required  for  the  same  end  as  the  death  of 
the  apostles  and  other  martyrs ! 

"  It  is  commonly  supposed,"  says  H.  Ballou,  Jun., I 
(<  Expositor,'  II.  pp.  106,  107,)  "  that  the  suffering^ 
of  Christ  were  of  a  peculiar  character,  different  in  their 
very  nature  from  any  thing  ever  endured  by  man. 
They  are  thought  to  have  been  so  great,  so  amazing, 
as  infinitely  to  surpass  all  human  ability  to  sustain." 
"  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach,  respecting  this  point  ? 
They  recognize  the  fact,  as  one  which  nobody  then 
doubted  or  wondered  at,  that  men,  mortal  men,  did 
frequently  endure  the  same  hind  of  sufferings  with 
those  of  Christ,  and  that  they  were  capable  of  enduring 
them  with  patience."  "  The  sufferings  of  Christ 


176  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Some  have  suffered  more.  Christ  endured  no  penal  suffering. 

(p.  109. )  were  not  regarded  as  peculiar  to  himself,  but 
as  shared,  in  all  their  detail,  by  his  persecuted  follow- 
ers.— There  is  scarcely  a  fact  more  frequently  recog- 
nized in  the  New  Testament,  or  introduced  in  a  greater 
variety  of  relations.  And  with  respect  to  the  intense- 
ness  of  his  sufferings, — those  he  endured  on  the  cross  did 
not  equal,  or  at  most  did  not  exceed,  those  which  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  were  to  experience  in  the  ap- 
proaching destruction  of  their  city." 

That  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  directly  inflicted 
by  the  Father  is  most  fully  denied  by  the  same  writer. 
"  That  there  was  a  class  of  sufferings,  (p.  Ill,)  inflict- 
ed on  Christ  by  the  immediate  interference  of  God,  is 
no  more  intimated  in  the  Scriptures,  than  that  such  was 
the  case  with  the  Apostles  and  early  Christians."  No, 
though  Isaiah  says,  <:  The  LORD  hath  laid  on  him  the 
iniquity  of  us  all.  It  pleased  the  LORD  to  bruise  him, 
he  hath  put  him  to  grief."  Notwithstanding  what 
Isaiah  thought  and  said,  this  wiser  than  the  ancient 
seer  avers,  (p.  116,)  "  that  we  are  absolutely  preclu- 
ded from  all  supposition  of  any  other  sufferings  than 
those  mentioned  by  the  evangelist,  or  such  as  arose,  in 
the  natural  order  of  things,  from  the  circumstances  in 
which  he  stood.  Those  that  he  actually  bore,  were 
such  as  the  apostles  and  early  Christians  were  parta- 
kers of."  The  conclusion  to  which  he  comes,  in  regard 
to  "  the  nature  and  design  of  Christ's  sufferings,"  is, 
(p.  105,)  that  they  were  "  the  same,  in  their  nature, 
with  other  sufferings  for  righteousness'  sake  which  God 
ordains  in  his  providence;"  "a  necessary,  (p.  117,) 


SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR.  177 

Ilia  sufferings  merely  incidental.  Christ  suffered  as  a  pat' 

an  unavoidable  element  in  the  execution  of  his  general 
enterprise." 

In  other  words  they  were  merely  incidental  to  the 
unpopular  work  in  which  he  was  engaged,  just  as  in 
the  case  of  the  proto-jnartyr  Stephen,  and  the  more  re- 
cent martyrs,  Munson,  Lyman,  and  Williams !  "  In 
this  sense,"  we  are  plainly  told,  (p.  118,)  "  his  suffer- 
ings were  our  ransom,  our  reconciliation  to  God,  the 
price  at  which  our  salvation  was  purchased. — This  is 
agreeable  to  the  spontaneous  and  universal  language 
of  all  ages,  and  on  all  subjects.  We  say  of  the  Ame- 
rican revolution,  that  our  fathers  purchased  the  inde- 
pendence of  our  country  with  their  blood ;  that  they 
sacrificed  themselves  for  us ;  that  they  were  our  poli- 
tical ransom."  That  is,  Christ  is  the  moral  ransom  of 
tho  world,  in  thp  samp  spnsp  in  "which  the  revolution- 
ary fathers  are  the  "  political  ransom"  of  this  country. 

All  this  is  still  more  plainly  expressed  and  avowed  by 
O.  A.  Skinner.  "  Christ  was  a  Savior ;  ('  Univ.  111. 
and  Def.,'  pp.  128,  129,  130,)  and  in  the  work  of  sal- 
vation he  had  to  encounter,  error,  bigotry,  and  sin. — 
What  he  endures  is  incidental  to  the  work  of  opposing 
error,  bigotry,  and  sin.  He  suffered,  as  the  apostles 
and  Christian  fathers  suffered."  "  JESUS  GAVE  HIM- 

FOR  THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  WORLD,  just  OS  the   W- 

volutionary  fathers  GAVE  THEMSELVES  TO  EFFECT  THE 

FREEDOM  OF  OUR  COUNTRY  !" 

So  also  says  Mr.  Le  Fevre.  He  maintains,  ((  Gos- 
pel Anchor,'  II.  5,)  that  he  "  could  not^  believe  such  a 
monstrous  hypothesis"  as  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 


178  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Christ  a  revolutionary  hero.  Paine's  Age  of  Reason. 

Atonement.  "  The  object  of  Christ's  mission,  life,  suf- 
ferings, and  death,  was  to  reconcile  man  to  God  and  to 
his  fellow.  In  this  cause  he  shed  his  blood.  The  sub- 
ject may  be  thus  illustrated.  The  heroes  of  our  revolu- 
tion shed  their  blood  in  the  cause  of  freedom,  and 
through  their  devotedness  and  sufferings,  we  enjoy  all 
the  advantages  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  It  may 
therefore  be  said,  almost  without  a  metaphor,  by  their 
stripes  we  are  healed."  Vicarious  Atonement  he  re- 
gards, as  "  excessively  erroneous,  and  dreadfully  re- 
volting" 

Mr.  Williamson  has  much  to  the  same  effect,  and  so 
have  others ;  but  I  forbear  to  adduce  any  other  wit- 
nesses. What  we  have  is  enough  to  break  our  hearts. 
— That  men,  professing  Infidelity,  should  have  thus 
made  the  cross  of  Christ  of  none  eflfprt  would  not  have 
surprised  us.  But  that  men  professing,  and  very  tena- 
cious of  the  claim,  to  be  Christians,  should  thus  have 
wounded  Christ  in  the  house  of  his  friends,  is  heart- 
rending. We  are  confounded,  overwhelmed,  at  such 
an  unnatural  spectacle.  "  Our  only  reply  is — a  flood 
of  tears" 

Had  Thomas  Paine  enjoyed  the  rare  light  of  these 
luminaries,  we  should  probably  never  have  heard  of 
"  the  Age  of  Reason."  His  account  of  the  matter,  (pp. 
31-2,)  is  strikingly  similar.  "  That  such  a  person  as 
Jesus  Christ  existed,"  he  remarks,  "  and  that  he  was 
crucified, — are  historical  relations  strictly  within  the  lim- 
its of  probability.  He  preached  most  excellent  morali- 
tv,  and  the  equality  of  man ;  but  he  preached  also 


SUFFERINGS   OF    CHRIST    NOT   PECULIAR.  17(J 

Mr.  Bailout  -Toil.  Why  called  the  Savior  of  the  world. 

airainst  tlie  corruptions  and  avarice  of  the  Jewish  priests, 
and  this  brought  upon  him  the  hatred  and  vengeance  of 
the  whole  order  of  priesthood. — Neither  is  it  improbable 
that  Jesus  Christ  had  in  contemplation  the  delivery  of 
the  Jewish  nation  from  the  bondage  of  the  Romans. 
Between  the  two,  however,  this  virtuous  reformer  and 
revolutionist  lost  his  life."  I  can  scarcely  avoid  the 
belief,  that  this  last  sentence,  written  and  published  in 
1794,  served  as  the  groundwork  of  this  new  scheme  of. 
divinity  ;  especially  as  Mr.  Ballou,  the  founder  of  the 
order  as  it  now  is,  confesses  that  it  was  his  "  reading 
some  deistical  writings"  that  tended  to  bring  him  upon 
his  present  ground. 

It  being  thus  denied,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  : 
were  peculiar  either  in  kind  or  degree,  or  different  from 
what  others  in  like  circumstances  experience  ;  that  they 
were  necessary  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  or  that  any 
are  thereby  delivered  from  deserved  punishishment,  it 
will  be  asked,  Why  is  he  called  '  the  Savior  of  the 
world  ?'  To  this,  it  is  replied  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Saw- 
yer, C  L<*.  to  Remington,'  pp.  30,  49,)  "  Christ  did  not 
come  to  save  man  from  the  punishment  of  his  sin,  the 
penalty  of  the  broken  law  ;  but  he  came  to  save  m;m 
from  his  sins,  from  tinning"  "Christ  came  to  save  his 
people  from  their  sins,  and  not  from  the  punishment  of 
their  sins  ; — to  save  men  from  deserving  punishment, 
rather  than  from  punishment  deserved." 

"  All  those  passages  of  scripture,"  says  Mr.  Ballou, 
('  Exp.'  III.  65,)  "  which  define  the  nature  of  salvation, 
agree  that  Jesus  Christ  saves  man  from  evil  which  at- 


180  UNIVERSALISM  AS   IT    IS. 

From  what  Christ  saves.  Christ  died  in  vain. 

/  taches  to  him  in  the  present  world,  and  which  he  suf- 
fers in  his  present  state  of  being."  This  salvation  has 
nothing  to  do  with  another  world ;  the  sinner  suffers 
none  the  less  in  another  world  for  what  Christ  did  in 
this.  And  none  the  less  in  this  world,  except  as  he  is 
induced  by  the  example  and  instruction  of  Christ  to 
cease  from  sin.  "  It  thus  appears,"  he  adds,  "that  the 
salvation  of  mankind  by  Jesus  Christ  is  a  salvation 
from  sin.  And  as  sin  is  an  evil  which  attaches  to  us 
in  this  present  state,  it  appears  that,  instead  of  saving 
men  from  just  punishment  in  the  future  world,  Jesus 
came  to  save  them  from  the  sin  which  they  commit  in 
this." 

Such  is  the  uniform  testimony  of  all  their  authors, 
as  far  as  I  have  had  an  opportunity  to  consult  them. 
They  all  maintain  that  the  only  sense  in  which  it  is 
proper  to  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Savior  of  the  world,  is 
that  just  given ;  he  saves  them  from  committing  sin, 
and  from  the  temporal  evils  which  would  have  come 
upon  them  had  they  committed  the  sin  from  which  they 
are  thus  dissuaded.  "  The  evils,"  says  Mr.  Whittemore, 
('  Plain  Guide,'  p.  254,)  "  from  which  Jesus  came  to 
save  men  are  in  this  world,  and  for  this  reason  he  came 
into  this  world  to  save  them." 

But  if  such  was  the  object  of  Christ  in  coming  into 
the  world,  and  if  he  saves  men  in  no  other  way  than 
by  saving  them  from  sin,  ignorance,  and  consequent 
misery  in  this  world,  then  I  maintain  that  CHRIST  DIED 
IN  VAIN,  as  respects  the  vast  multitude  of  the  human 
race.  The  heathen,  generation  after  generation,  have 


SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR.  181 

Christ  saves  none  fully.  A  trap  sprung. 

never  heard  of  Christ,  much  less  have  they  been  saved 
by  him  from  their  sins,  or  will  they  be,  before  death. 
Christ,  therefore,  is,  in  this  sense,  no  Savior  to  them, 
nor  is  he  to  any  others  fully.  Where  is  the  man  that 
doeth  good  and  sinneth  not  ?  I  know  that  the  Perfec- 
tionists and  some  others  hold  that  there  are  such ;  but, 
I  ask,  where  is  the  man  ?  I  have  nevej  known  one,  of 
whom  I  had  any  reason  to  believe  it,  and,  I  am  sure 
that  no  Universalist  of  my  acquaintance  could  ever  lay 
any  claim  to  such  perfection  with  a  good  grace. 

If  men  continue  still  to  sin,  after  they  have  known 
Christ,  and  cease  not  until  death,  and  if  the  salvation 
which  Christ  effects  has  to  do  only  with  this  life,  then 
how  is  Christ  in  any  sense  the  Savior  of  the  world,  or 
even  of  the  elect  ?  Is  not  Death,  that  puts  an  end  to 
all  sinning,  according  to  th^ir  scheme,  the  great  Savior 
after  all  ?  And  what  need  was  there  for  Christ  to 
die,  or  suffer  at  all  ?  For  where  Christ  saves  one 
man  from  his  sins,  Death,  I  repeat  it,  saves  its  hun- 
dreds. Why  could  not  Death  have  dispensed  with 
Christ  ? 

Moreover,  by  teaching  that  the  sufferings  and  death 
of  Christ,  affect  man  only  in  this  present  world,  they 
absolutely  exclude  themselves  from  using  a  large  class 
of  texts,  in  proof  of  their  principal  doctrine,  to  which 
they  have  been  accustomed  most  confidently  to  appeal. 
Let  me  recall  the  language  of  Mr.  Whittemore  above — 
"  The  evils  from  which  Jesus  came  to  save  men  are  in 
this  world  ;"  and  that  of  Mr.  Ballou  also,— ".#//  those 
passages  of  Scripture,  which  define  the  nature  of  sal- 
16 


182  UNFVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Bare-faced  deception.  False  premises. 

vation,  agree  that  Jesus'  Christ  saves  man  from  evil 
which  attaches  to  him  in  the  present  world"  Of  course 
there  are  none  in  his  estimation,  which  teach  that 
Christ  saves  man  from  any  evil  in  another  world.  Let 
there  be  no  evasion  nor  prevarication  here.  Let  the 
doctrine  be  well  denned,  and  then  let  them  abide  by  it. 

What  else,  now,  can  it  be  but  the  most  bare-faced 
deception  in  a  Universalist  preacher,  who  believes  that 
our  future  condition  is  not  at  all  affected  by  what  Christ 
did,  or  suffered  here,  to  appeal,  in  endeavoring  to  dis- 
prove endless,  or  limited,  punishment  in  a  future  state, 
to  those  texts  which  represent  Christ  as  the  Savior  of 
all  men,  &c.? 

Mr.  Whittemore,  in  his  <  Plain  Guide,'  (p.  25,)  at- 
tempts to  show  "  the  final  happiness  of  all  men,"  from 
the  fact  that  Christ  will  save  all  men — and  that  God 
"  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved."  But  how  does  this 
appear,  if  the  salvation  of  the  Bible  has  nothing  to  do 
with  a  future  state,  as  is  over  and  over  again  declared 
by  these  men  in  every  form  ?  Mr.  W.  pursues  the 
same  course  in  speaking  of  the  death  of  Christ,  (pp.  34 
-36.)  And  so,  too,  (p.  50 ;)  "  He  will  have  all  men 
to  be  saved,  which  is  the  highest  proof  of  his  regard  for 
all  men ;  and  to  this  end  he  has  sent  his  Son  to  die  for 
all  men,  in  execution  of  the  divine  purpose  to  bring  all 
to  the  enjoyment  of  salvation."  This  argument  he  ad- 
duces "  in  support  of  their  belief  in  the  eventual  holi- 
ness and  happiness  of  all  men,"  and  therefore  uses  the 
te,rm  c  salvation,'  as  equivalent  to  endless  happiness  in  a 
future  state.  But,  according  to  their  own  showing, 
it  can  have  no  such  meaning  or  reference. 


SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR.  183 

Sojih  istry  Fatee  conclusion*. 

Such  sophistry  is  scattered  over  nearly  all  Mr.  Bal- 
lou's  pages.  In  the  *  Expositor,'  (II.  p.  355,)  after  refer- 
in  g  to  several  texts,  he  remarks  ; — "  The  salvation  of 
all  men  by  Jesus  Christ  seems  to  be  as  fully  and  as  ex- 
plicitly expressed  in  these  declarations,  as  it  can  be  in 
our  language. — No  fair  course  of  argument  can  disal- 
low that  his  dying  expressly  for  all  men  is  favorable 
to  the  hope  that  all  men  will  be  finally  saved  by  him." 
Here  salvation  is  used  again  in  reference  to  a  future 
state,  contrary  to  the  avowed  limitation  of  it  to  this 
world,  by  this  writer  and  his  brethren. 

In  like  manner,  also,  Mr.  Fernald  asks,  ('  Univ. 
against  Partialism,'  p.  64,)  in  reference  to  the  text, — 
'  He  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all' — "  How  inefficacious 
will  his  labors,  sufferings,  and  death,  prove,  if  a  consid- 
erable portion,  or  any,  for  whom  he  died,  are  never  to 
experience  his  salvation,  but  exist  for  ever  in  misery 
and  sin  ?"  The  salvation  of  Christ  is  here  opposed  to 
an  existence  forever  in  misery  and  sin,  and  made  to 
consist  in  a  deliverance  from  endless  misery.  But  if 
the  statements  above  made  are  correct,  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  will  prove  thus  inefficacious,  having  no  bear- 
ing whatever  on  the  future  state  of  mankind. 

In  order  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  final  happi- 
ness of  all  mankind,  D.  Skinner  of  Utica  remarks, 
(*  Mag,  and  Adv.'  III.  254,)  "  I  cannot  see  how — any  two 
propositions  can  be  more  clearly  established-than  these 
— 1.  That  Christ  died  for  all,  and— 2.  That  he  will 
save  all  he  died  for."  Well,  what  then  ?  Does  it 
follow  that  all  will  go  to  heaven  ?  No,  for  nothing  that 


184  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

An  appalling  conclusion.  A  great  mistake. 

Christ  did  in  this  world,  as  they  maintain,  affects  our 
condition  hereafter  in  the  least  degree ! 

Mr.  Thomas  very  frequently  falls  into  the  same  er- 
ror. He  refers  in  his  '  Discussion,'  (p.  264,)  to  the 
phrase — f  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Savior  of 
the  world,'  "  in  proof  of  the  final  holiness  and  happi- 
ness of  all  mankind."  How  does  it  prove  this  point, 
when  the  salvation  of  the  •  gospel  relates  only  to.  this 
present  world,  and  not  at  all  to  the  final  state  of  man- 
kind ? 

Again  the  same  writer  observes,  (p.  261,)  "  since 
Jesus  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  you  must  either 
admit  that  all  will  be  restored,  or  consent  to  the  appall- 
ing conclusion  that  Christ  died  in  vain."  But  if  Christ 
only  saves  men  from  sinning  in  this  world, — the  only 
world,  according  to  them,  in  which  sin  can  be  commit- 
ed, — is  not  this  "  appalling  conclusion"  taught  by  them- 
selves. 

So,  too,  in  commenting  on  the  words — '  He  is  the 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world' — he  re- 
marks, (p.  267,)  "  All  I  now  contend  for,  is,  that  the 
salvation  of  all  mankind  was  contemplated  in  the  mis- 
sion of  Christ."—"  And  to  grant  (p.  269,)  that  suffi- 
cient provision  has  been  made  for  the  salvation  of  all, 
is  equivalent  to  an  admission  that  all  men  will  be 
saved ;" — but  where  ?  Not  in  a  future  state,  but  in  this. 
Not  from  punishment,  but  from  sin.  Are  then  all  saved 
from  sin  in  this  life  ?  No.  Then  all  will  not  be — are 
not  certainly  saved  even  in  this  world  ;  and  this  salva- 
tion does  not  concern  another  world ! 


SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST  NOT  PECULIAR.  185 

Shifting  their  poeitiou.  Subterfuges. 

But  I  need  not  cite  further  examples  in  point.  Mr. 
Thomas'  book,  is  wholly  based  on  this  fallacy.  From 
beginning  to  end  he  refers  to  such  texts  in  proof  of  the 
salvation  of  all  mankind  in  another  state.  And  I  scarce- 
ly know  one  of  their  books  in  which  this  sophistry  does 
not  appear.  They  are  continually  shifting  their  ground 
— now  maintaining  that  salvation  has  nothing  to  do 
with  a  future  state,  and  that  Christ's  death  accomplish- 
es nothing  for  us  except  while  we  remain  here  in  this 
world, — and  then  proving  that  all  men  will  be  taken 
to  dwell  for  ever  in  heaven,  freed  from  all  sin  and  sor- 
row, because  Christ  died  for  all,  and  is,  or  was,  the 
Savior  of  the  world  ! ! !  Away  with  such  dishonesty — 
such  pitiful  subterfuges — such  tricks  and  double  mean- 
ings. It  shows  that  they  do  not  believe  their  own  de- 
finitions and  doctrines,  when  they  are  thus  driven  to 
swallow  their  own  words.  A  long  schooling  it  needs, 
indeed,  for  men  to  unlearn  the  plainest  lessons  of  com- 
mon sense. 


16* 


CHAPTER  XIV, 

DENIAL    OF    THE   TRINITY. 

No  need  of  an  Incarnate  God — Christ  only  a  man — No 
truth  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity — Views  of  Murray — 
The  Trinity  exploded  by  Hosea  Ballon — Christ  superior 
to  other  men  only  by  office — Christ  not  possessed  of  two  na- 
tures, human  and  superhuman — Socinianism  favorable  to 
devotion — They  profess  to  honor  Christ  more  than  others. 

•'  They  now  are  deem'd  the  faithful,  and  are  prais'd, 
Who,  constant  only  in  rejecting  THEE, 
Deny  thy  Godhead  with  a  martyr's  zeal, 
Blind  and  in  love  with  darkness  !     Yet  e'en  these 
Worthy,  compar'd  with  sycophants,  who  knee 
Thy  name  adoring,  and  then  preach  thee  man  .'" — COWPEK. 

UNIVERSALISM  has  no  need  of  an  Incarnate  God. 
Man  may  be  fitted  to  act  the  part  of  such  a  Savior  as 
this  system  sets  forth.  The  Savior  of  the  Universalist 
is  merely  a  distinguished  philanthropist — an  ardent  lov- 
er of  his  race,  and  a  pure  specimen  of  human  nature. 
He  is  superior  to  man,  but  only  as  one  man  is  superior 
to  another.  He  is  exalted  over  even  the  highest,  but 
this  is  owing  to  the  fact,  that  God  has  anointed  him 
with  the  oil  of  Gladness  above  his  fellows.  The  or- 
thodox Christian  has  learned  from  his  Bible,  that,  "  in 
the  beginning  was  the  WORD,  and  the  WORD  was  with 
God,  and  the  WORD  was  God  ;"  that  this  same  WORD, 


DENIAL  OF  THE  TRINITY.  187 

Jesus  Christ  only  a  man.  Murray  a  Sabeliian. 

that  was  God,  "  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us ;" 
became  incarnate,  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant, 
and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men ;  so  that  "  God 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  God  became  incarnate — 
God  became  man.  The  Universalist,  on  the  other  hand, 
does  not  believe  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  or  any  part  of 
the  spiritual  nature  of  Jesus  had  any  existence  in  the 
beginning,  or  even  before  his  conception  as  a  human 
being.  He  maintains  that 

XV.  JESUS  CHRIST  WAS  ONLY  A  MAN  OF  SUPERIOR  GIFTS. 
And  consequently,  that 

XVI.   THERE  is  NO  DISTINCTION  OF  PERSONS  IN  THE  DEITY. 

These  two  articles  of  their  creed  are  so  connected 
that  it  will  be  proper  to  consider  them  together.  By 
holding  the  inferiority  of  the  Son,  they  of  course,  ex- 
clude equality  with  the  Father,  and  so  deny  the  Trin- 
ity. In  this  respect  they  are  Socinians  of  the  lowest 
stamp. 

"  Father  Murray"  was  a  Sabeliian — neither  a  Trini- 
tarian, properly,  nor  yet  a  Socinian.  The  editor  of  his, 
*  Life,'  in  an  exhibition  of  his  faith,  represents  him,  (p. 
264,)  as  a  believer  in  the  complex  character  of  the 
Divine  Being,  after  this  manner  ; — "  In  process  of  time 
this  august  CREATOR,  was  to  be  enrobed  in  humanity, 
and  become  the  SON  born  ;  was  to  be  exhibited  as  a 
HOLY  SPIRIT  of  consolation,  taking  of  the  things  of  Je- 
sus, and  exhibiting  them  to  the  mind,  thus  speaking 
peace." 


188 


UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


Murray's  views  of  Christ.  These  views  discarded. 

"  Mr.  Murray  was  at  the  same  time  a  UNITARIAN  and 
a  TRINITARIAN,  constantly  beholding  the  trinity  in  unity. 
— The  Almighty,  clad  in  garments  of  flesh,  became  the 
GOD-MAN,  and  speaking  of  himself  as  man,  he  says — 
'  My  Father  is  greater  than  I ;'  while  reverting  to  the 
divinity  he  affirms — '  I  and  my  Father  are  one.'  Was 
this  true — or  was  Jesus  Christ  an  imposter  1  In  this 
view  the  Scriptures  are  beautifully  consistent.  £  I  am 
God  THE  SAVIOR  ;  a  just  God  and  a  Savior  ;  there  is 
none  beside  me.' — Such  were  the  comprehensive  views' 
of  Deity,  which  became  more  and  more  luminous  to 
the  mental  eye  of  the  preacher." 

Although  Mr.  Murray  held  the  doctrine  of  the  Trini- 
ty, if  at  all,  only  in  a  modified  sense,  he  certainly  re- 
garded Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as  the  SUPREME  GOD  INCAR- 
NATE. "  It  is  manifest,"  he  says,  ('  Letters  and  Sketch- 
es,' I.  81,)  "  that  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  is  both  God 
and  man.  All  fulness  dwelleth  in  him.  He  was  the 
God  with  us.  The  fullness  of  the  God-head,  dwelling 
in  him  was  the  offended  Being  ;  the  fullness  of  our  hu- 
manity in  him  was  the  offending  nature."  The  two 
distinct  and  independent  natures  of  Christ,  are  here 
most  fully  and  plainly  set  forth.  "  These  sentiments," 
says  Mr.  Everett,  the  editor  of  the  fifth  edition  of  his 
'Life,'  "  are  held,  (p.  279,)  but  by  few  among  those  now 
denominated  Universalists."  This  departure  from  their 
great  leader  will  now  be  shown  by  a  reference  to 
their  authorities. 

It  was  owing  to  the  superior  discernment  of  Hosea 
Ballou,  as  I  have  already  shown,  that  the  doctrine  of 


DENIAL  OF  THE  TRINITY.  189 

The  whole  Meet  Unitarian.  Ballou's  views. 

the  Trinity  was  found  to  be  erroneous,  some  forty  or 
fifty  years  since ;  and  through  his  influence  "  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Trinity  and  Atonement,  with  all  kindred 
notions,  were  discarded  by  the  whole  denomination,  with 
a  very  few  exceptions."  ('  Mod.  Hist.'  p.  432.)  "  I 
cannot  say,  for  certainty,"  he  remarks  (p.  437,)  "  what 
year  I  became  a  Unitarian,  but  it  was  long  before  I  wrote 
my  Treatise  on  Atonement."  When  he  wrote  that  Trea- 
tise, "  although  he  fully  believed,  (p.  11,)  in  the  depen- 
dence of  Christ  on  his  God  and  Father, — he  entertained 
the  opinion  that  he  had  a  sentient  existence  before  he 
was  manifested  in  flesh."  But  in  relation  "  to  the  pre- 
^xistence  of  Christ,"  he  now  differs  much  from  his  for- 
mer self. 

In  the  fifth  edition  of  his  '  Treatise,'  he  ridicules 
the  very  idea  of  a  Trinity,  in  language  like  this : — On 
the  supposition  "  that  the  Mediator  is  really  God, — then 
we  contend,  that  if  he  be  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  the  son 
of  himself,  and  is  his  own  father ;  that  he  is  no  more 
the  Son  of  God,  than  God  is  his  son."  Speaking  of 
"  the  personage  of  the  Mediator,"  he  says,  (p.  113,) — 
"  We  shall  contend  that  the  Mediator  is  a  created,  de- 
pendent being."  "  The  reader  will  then  ask,  (p.  1 14,)  if 
we  would  consider  the  Mediator  no  more  than  equal  with 
men?  We  answer — *  Yes,'  were  it  not  that  our  Father 
and  his  Father,  our  God  and  his  God,  hath  anointed 
him  above  his  fellows."  Mark  this  admission ;  Christ 
"  is  no  more  than  equal  with  men,"  by  nature,  but  for 
certain  reasons  of  office,  or  state,  he  has  been  elevated 
to  the  highest  seat  among  men.  He  afterwards  com- 


190  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Christ  superior  only  in  office.  Kneeland's  views. 

pares  him  to  an  ambassador  sent  to  a  foreign  court, 
who  "  is,  in  his  official  character,  the  power  that  sent 
him."  He  admits  of  no  other  distinction  than  this. 
As  when  he  states,  (<  Lect.  Ser.'  p.  208,)  that  "  it  is 
plain  that  the  nature  of  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  the 
Father  is  the  nature  of  the  relation  of  every  man 
to  the  Father  of  our  spirits,"  and  adds  a  caution 
to  the  hearer  "  against  supposing  that  he  means  to 
level  the  blessed  Redeemer  to  no  more  than  an  equal- 
ity with  ourselves,"  since  for  his  office's  sake  "  God 
hath  highly  exalted  him"  above  his  original  equality 
with  us. 

We  find  these  sentiments  running  through  all  their 
subsequent  standards.  Among  the  first  to  make  a  bold 
stand  publicly  against  the  Trinity,  and  the  divinity  of 
the  Mediator,  was  Abner  Kneeland.  "  The  supposi- 
tion," ('  Lectures,'  p.  142,)  "  that  the  Mediator  possess- 
ed any  thing  essential  to  the  Deity, — or  that  he  was  es- 
sentially God, — involves  us  in  absurdity"  He  speaks  of 
the  doctrine  of  "  the  simple  humanity  of  Christ,"  as 
"  the  doctrine  which  I  believe,  and  the  doctrine  which 
I  mean  to  preach  as  long  as  God  spares  my  life" — 
(Poor  man !  he  is  long  since  dead,  though  he  lives.) 
After  what  he  regards  as  a  somewhat  full  discussion  of 
the  subject,  he  adds,  (p.  159,)  "  from  the  above,  and 
from  all  that  has  been  said,  it  is  evident  that  the  apos- 
tles, and  all  who  conversed  with  our  Lord,  before  and 
after  his  resurrection,  considered  him  in  no  other  light 
than  simply  a  man  approved  of  God." 


DENIAL    OF   THE    TRINITY.  191 

AbMird  doctrines.  Trinity  a  heathen  tradition. 

He  speaks  his  mind  most  fully  on  this  subject,  in  the 
following  passage  : — "  The  error  (p.  112,)  to  which 
most  of  the  absurd  notions  in  divinity  may  be  traced,  is 
as  I  humbly  conceive,  the  supposition  that  sin  is  an  in- 
finite evil,  which  demanded  infinite  satisfaction  to  divine 
justice.  This  led  the  way  to  the  supposed  necessity  of 
an  infinite  sacrifice :  and,  as  Christ  was  supposed  to 
have  been  this  sacrifice,  this  led  to  the  supposition  of  his 
divine  nature;  which,  in  their  train,  led  to  other  no- 
tions, inconsistent  with  themselves,  palpably  absurd, 
contradictory  and  ridiculous  !" 

The  '  Universalist  Expositor,'  asks  (I.  343,)—"  In 
what  part  of  the  New  Testament  do  we  learn  that 
either  Jesus  or  his  apostles  labored  to  prove  that  he 
was  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things  ?"  It  would,  of 
course,  be  of  no  use  to  refer  such  an  inquirer  to  John  i. 
1_3?  14  ;  Col.  i.  16  ;  Heb.  i.  2, 8,  10 ;  iii.  1—4  ;  for 
he  has  set  such  evidence  aside  ;  he  knows  more  about 
it,  or  knows  better  how  to  express  his  thoughts,  than 
either  John,  or  Paul,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking 
through  their  lips. 

Mr.  Grosh  says,  ('  Mag.  and  Adv.'  III.  397,)  "  We 
believe  that  the  nature  of  Jesus  was  strictly  the  human 
nature  only,  while  on  earth, — that  he  had  no  existence, 
before  his  earthly  existence,  except  in  the  purpose  and 
counsel  of  God, — that  he  was  the  chief  (or  begin- 
ning) of  the  creation  of  God  only  by  the  powers  and 
office  with  which  he  was  gifted,  and  by  his  resurrec- 
tion." He  speaks  of  the  Trinity  as  a  "  heathen  tradi- 
tion" incorporated  into  the  Christian  system,"  which 


192  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Traditions  of  men.  Revolting  to  reason. 

"  has  bewildered  many  sincere  believers,  and  rejoiced 
not  a  few  hea  rts  among  skeptics  who  opposed  Chris- 
tianity." 

Mr.  D.  Skinner,  also  of  Utica,  speaks  ('  Mag.  and 
Adv."  III.  333,)  of  "  the  mysterious  and  inexplicable 
doctrine  of  the  trinity,"  as  "  a  doctrine  that  was  un- 
heard of  during  the  three  first  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era  ;"  and  classes  it  with  others,  which,  he  says,  "  find 
no  support  in  the  word  of  God,  are  not  sanctioned  by 
the  Gospel  of  our  salvation,  are  not  taught  either  in  the 
Old  or  New  Testament,  are  the  traditions  of  men,  doc- 
trines of  human  invention,  unknown  in  the  days  of  pri- 
mitive Christianity,  and,  must  finally  go  down  to  '  the 
tomb  of  the  Capulets' — their  primeval  nonentity."  The 
other  doctrines,  of  which  he  thus  speaks,  are  "  the  pop- 
ular doctrine  of  the  fall ;"  Adam's  being  "  transformed 
from  an  immortal  to  a  mortal  being,"  and  conveying  "the 
taint  of  natural  and  moral  death  through  all  his  unborn 
posterity ;"  "  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity ;"  "  the 
doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation  j"  "  the  doctrine  of 
endless  misery ;"  "  the  existence  of  a  personal  devil ;" 
and  "  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement."  All — all 
wrong,  nnscriptural,  unreasonable  and  absurd  ! 

The  present  generation  of  Universalist  preachers  can 
see  neither  sense  nor  reason,  much  less  scripture,  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Speaking  of  "  the  favorite 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  S.  R.  Smith,  of  Albany,  says, 
('Mag.  and  Adv.'  VIII.  121,)  "  there  is  something  so 
revolting  to  reason,  so  repugnant  to  all  our  ideas  of  num- 
ber and  consistency,  in  this  prevailing  dogma,  that  it  is 


DENIAL   OF    THE    TRINITY.  193 

linage  of  the  Father.  Our  ideas  of  God. 

matter  of  wonder,  not  that  so  many,  but  that  so  few, 
comparatively,  reject  the  whole  system,  of  which  this  is 
supposed  a  part."  He  calls  it  (p.  122,)  a  "  singularly 
absurd  doctrine,"  denies  "  that  this  absurd  dogma  con- 
stitutes any  part  of  Christianity,"  and  declares  that 
"  the  Trinity  was  never  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible." 

"  The  popular  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,"  says  S.  Cobb, 
('  U.  Exp.'  II.  135,)  "  involving  the  proper  deity  of 
( 'hrist,  seems  to  us  as  unscriptural  as  it  is  unreasonable.' ' 
He  maintains  (pp.  137, 9,)  that  "Jesus  himself  clearly  dis- 
claims all  pretensions  to  proper  deity."  He  explains 
•f  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person,"  to  mean  that  "  Jesus  Christ 
came  unto,  mankind  in  the  spirit,  the  disposition,  the 
moral  nature  of  God.  Here  we  have,  [in  the  excellent 
moral  traits  of  Jesus'  character,]  the  image  of  the  di- 
vine moral  perfections,  a  ray  of  the  divine  brightness.'' 
The  author  of  '  Universalism  Illustrated  and  De- 
fended,' says,  (p.  57,)  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
"  the  first  principles  of  this  [doctrine]  involve  contra- 
dictions, so  that  none  can  receive  it  without  first  making 
an  entire  surrender  of  t/u  vndirslanding"  "  "When 
we  consider,"  he  adds,  (p.  60,)  "  the  peculiar  and 
strange  nature  of  the  dm  -trine,  it  seems  as  though  a 
bare  statement  of  it  is  sufficient  to  refute  it."  "  The 
Trinity  cannot  be  true,"  he  says,  (p.  63,)  "  because  it 
teaches  that  Christ  is  God  and  man  at  the  same  time,'1 
and  (p.  72,)  "  is  opposed  to  all  our  ideas  of  God,  and 
to  the  uniform  language  of  the  Bible."  In  speaking  oj 
17 


194  UN1VERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Divine  nature  of  Christ.  Monstrous  dogma. 

what  he  calls  the  divine  character  of  Christ,  "  we  shall 
not  be  understood,"  he  says,  (p.  137,)  "  to  mean  that 
he  was  God  ;  for  we  have  shown  that  he  did  not  pos- 
sess- the  attributes  of  Deity."  This  divine  nature  he 
speaks  of  in  four  particulars ;  his  entire  devotion  to  his 
work,  his  unbending  adherence  to  moral  principle,  his 
love  and  his  impartiality.  In  the  same  sense,  it  is  said 
by  Peter,  that  all  believers  may  "  be  partakers  of  the 
divine  nature."  Here  then,  is  nothing  but  "  simple 
humanity." 

•  When  Christ  is  spoken  of  by  Paul,  as  "  being  in  the 
form  of  God,"  this  writer  tells  us  (p.  142,)  "  by  <  form  of 
God,'  the  apostle  means  intellectual  and  moral  likeness." 
That  is,  his  mental  and  moral  character  so  nearly  re- 
sembled the  Father's,  that  he  may  be  said  to  have  been 
"  in  the  form  of  God." 

A  writer  in  the '  Universalist  Union,'  (IV.  239,)  remarks, 
that  "  it  is  one  of  the  strangest  wonders  of  the  world, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  should  find  a  resting-place 
in  the  Christian  Church.  Nature,  reason,  and  revelation , 
are  alike  against  the  monstrous  dogma."  He  intimates 
that  trinitarians  are  children  now,  and  that  bye  and  bye, 
they  will  become  old  enough  to  detect  and  abandon 
the  error.  A  pretty  compliment,  truly,  to  the  venera- 
ble fathers  of  the  Church  in  this  and  former  genera- 
tions, who  thought,  spake,  and  wrote,  unmoved  by  the 
fear  of  man. 

Another  writer  in   the  same  volume,  professes   (p. 
401,)  to  have  discovered  that  it  was   a   "  prejudice  of 


DENIAL    OF    THE    TRINITY.  195 

A  pagan  prejudice.  Christ  no  more  than  a  man. 

the  pagans"  that  "  first  suggested  to  the  Christians  the 
idea  of  calling  Jesus  a  God. — We  can  view  him  in  no 
more  favorable  light,  than  as  the  man  Christ  Jesus." 
"  The  supernatural  knowledge  of  our  Savior  (p.  402,) 
is  to  be  understood  in  the  same  way  with  that  possessed 
by  other  divinely-inspired  persons. — If  the  knowledge, 
possessed  by  them,  does  not  entitle  them  to  an  equality 
with  God,  neither  does  it  in  the  case  of  our  Savior. — In 
both  cases  the  knowledge  was  obtained  in  a  similar 
way. — So  it  was  with  the  miraculous  powers  they  exer- 
cised." In  respect  to  the  possession  of  two  natures  by 
Christ,  he  says,  (p.  403,)  that  "  the  evidence  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  sacred  record.  The  doctrine  is  attended 
with  insuperable  difficulties." 

The  conclusion  to  which  this  writer  comes,  is,  "  that 
the  Savior  was  not  God ;  that  he  did  not  possess  but 
one  nature,  and  that  a  human  nature  like  our  own, — un- 
der the  influence  of  the  divine  spirit,  which  enabled  him 
to  perform  mighty  'miracles,  and  to  know  all  things, 
which  his  natural  faculties  did  not  enable  him  to  know." 
Such  are  the  unblushing  avowals  published  to  the 
world  as  the  tenets  of  Universalists  in  this  metropolis, 
through  the  columns  of  a  periodical,  of  which  Mr.  Saw- 
yer is  the  principal  editor. 

From  Mr.  Williamson,  we  learn,  through  his  '  Ex- 
position of  Universalism,'  (p.  13,)  "  that  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth was  a  created  and  a  dependent  being,  deriving  all 
his  wonderful  powers  from  God."  "  If  you  ask  me," 
he  says,  "  if  he  was  no  more  than  a  man,  my  answer  is, 


196  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

A  misguided  disciple.  Heartfelt  devotion . 

in  the  language  of  Scripture,  '  He  was  made,  in  all 
things,  like  unto  the  brethren,'  but  was  '  anointed  with 
the  oil  of  gladness  above  his  fellows,'  and  endued  with 
power  greater  than  any  other  man. — He  claimed  (!)  no 
higher  title  than  the  humble  one — '  the  Son  of  man ;' 
and  if  he  claimed  no  more  for  himself,  it  is  a  misguided 
disciple  that  claims  it  for  him."  "  His  meat  and  his 
drink  (p.  30,)  was  to  do  the  will  of  God,  and  the  spirit 
of  the  Lord  dwelt  richly  in  him.  In  this  sense,  and 
this  only,  he  and  his  Father  were  one."  "  The  idea 
of  a  Trinity,"  he  maintains,  fp.  33,)  "  is  destructive  of 
real,  pure,  heartfelt,  devotion,  to  one  only  living  and 
true  God  !"  Devotion  !  What  does  the  Universalist 
know  of  devotion  ?  Where  shall  we  go  to  find,  among 
•ither  their  people  or  ministers,  instances  of  real,  pure, 
heartfelt  devotion  ?  Men,  that  do  not  even  maintain 
closet-prayer,  not  to  speak  of  family-prayer,  and  whose 
whole  conduct  is  any  thing  but  devout,  set  themselves 
up  to  teach  a  Baxter,  Edwards,  Whitefield,  Brainard, 
Payson,  Martyn,  and  Taylor,  what "  heartfelt  devotion" 
means  ? 

"  It  moves  me  more,  perhaps,  than  folly  ought, 
When  some  green  heads,  as  void  of  wit  as  thought, 
Suppose  themselves  monopolists  of  sense, 
And  wiser  men's  abilities  pretense  " 

And  what  makes  the  matter  worse,  is  the  fact,  that 
these  men  pretend  to  honor  the  Sairior  more  than  we. 


DENIAL    OF    THE    TRINITY.  197 

h  >uor  Clui-t  mast.  We  a  thousand  times K-ss. 

They  are  his  genuine  disciples — they,  above  all  other 
men,  possess  his  spirit,  imitate  his  virtues,  magnify  his 
office,  exalt  his  character,  and  glory  in  his  cross  ! ! ! 
"  Let  it  not  be  said,"  exclaims  Mr.  Williamson,  (p.  35,) 
"  that  these  views  are  calculated  to  degrade  the  Savior 
in  the  estimation  of  the  world,  or  to  undermine  the 
foundations  of  confidence  in  his  power  to  save.  His 
example  and  character  are  not  the  less  lovely  because 
presented  in  the  person  of  our  elder  brother."  "  Glory 
be  to  him  who  hath  loved  us,  and  died,  that  he  migh 
return  us  to  God. — I  say,  with  the  full  heart,  glory  and 
honor  be  to  Jesus  the  Savior  : — " 

"  Who  knee 
Thy  name  adoring,  and  then  PREACH  THEE  MAN  !" 

Similar  language  is  used  by  Mr.  Manley,  of  Gaines- 
ville, Genesee  co.,  N:  Y.,  whose  sentiments  were  given 
above  from  the  Universalist  Union.  "  The  charge  may 
be  urged,"  he  says,  (p.  403,)  "  that  the  view  we  have 
presented  degrades  the  Savior — that  it  tarnishes  his 
character — that  it  brings  him  down  from  the  high  sta- 
tion to  which  his  nature  and  mighty  works  entitle  him. 
We  reply — not  so.  The  representation  we  give  of  him 
exalts  him  a  thousandfold  above  the  common  doctrine. 
It  by  no  means  diminishes  the  lustre  of  his  fame,  but 
adds  to  its  brightness  and  glory. — We  think  truly,  that 
the  supposition  that  Jesus  was  God,  degrades  his  cha- 
racter ;  while  the  opposite  supposition  reflects  upon  him 
the  brightest  glory ! ! !" 


198  UNFVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

A  screen. 

In  the  language  of  Scotland's  bard,  I  say,  in  respect 
to  such  pretended  preachers  of  Christ, — 

"  God  knows,  I'm  not  the  thing  I  should  be, 
Nor  am  I  even  the  thing  I  could  be, 
But  twenty  times  I  rather  would  be 

An  ATHEIST  clean. 
Than  under  gospel-colors  hid  be, 

Just  for  a  screen,*' 


CHAPTER    XV. 


Recapitulation — God's  favor  can  neither  be  gained  nor  lost — 
God  never  displeased  with  sinners — Not  at  all  affected  by 
our  sins — Never  our  enemy — All  love— Prayer  has  no  effect 
upon  God — These  views  popular  with  the  vilest  of  men. 

11  That  plea  refuted,  others  quick  they  seek — 
Mercy  is  infinite  and  man  is  weak  ; 
The  future  shall  obliterate  the  past, 
And  Heav'n,  no  doubt, shall  be  their  home  at  last" 

COWPER. 

THE  developments  already  made  of  the  heresies 
taught  by  Universalists  have,  doubtless,  prepared  the 
reader  for  all  that  may  follow.  Having  removed  all 
the  ancient  landmarks,  and  hurled  to  the  ground  the 
pillars  of  truth,  they  find  nothing  too  sacred  for  muti- 
lation or  destruction.  The  way  is  thus  cleared  for  the 
erection  of  such  a  structure  as  suits  their  corrupt  no- 
tions— in  which  they  may  entrench  themselves  beyond 
the  reach  of  every  foe.  From  sin  they  have  nothing  to 
fear,  for  it  is  only  a  finite  evil,  and  hardly  an  evil  at 
all.  Its  results,  certainly,  as  Mr.  Streeter  of  Boston 
maintains,  ('  Mag.  and  Adv.'  III.  290,)  are  properly 
no  evil,  inasmuch  as  they  are  the  means  of  the  great- 
est good.  "  God  does  not  produce,"  he  says,  "  nor 


200  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT    IS. 

Recapitulation.  No  matter  what  a  man  does. 

permit  any  affliction  or  trouble  as  an  ultimate  end. 
Under  his  administration  all  evils  are  partial  and  mo- 
mentary, and  designed  to  terminate  in  a  -greater  good. — 
The  anger  of  God  and  the  afflictions  endured  by  man- 
kind are  the  same  thing. — He  exercises  feelings  of 
compassion  towards  us  in  our  deepest  sufferings,  in 
whatever  way  they  may  have  been  brought  upon  us,  and 
is  determined — to  deliver  us  out  of  all  our  tribulations." 

Hence,  as  I  have  elsewhere  shown,  they  hold  that 
it  would  be  a  real  unkindness  in  God  to  prevent  the 
infliction  of  these  apparent  evils,  or  to  deliver  any  of 
our  race  from  the  sufferings  naturally  consequent  on 
their  sins.  There  being,  therefore,  no  need  of  any  sub- 
stitution of  another  in  our  stead,  no  place  is  found  for 
the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement,  and  it  is  discarded. 
The  sufferings  of  Jesus  are  next  deprived  of  all  their 
peculiarity,  and  he  becomes  simply  a  revolutionary 
hero,  or,  at  the  most,  a  distinguished  martyr  for  the 
truth.  Henceforth  he  is  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as 
"  GOD  OVER  ALL,"  as  having  had  any  real  existence 
before  his  appearance  in  the  flesh,  or  as  anything  more 
than  a  mere  man — our  elder  brother. 

The  traditions  of  the  elders  being  thus  c  exploded,' 
Universalism  proceeds  to  take  the  high  ground,  that 

XVII.  THE  FAVOR  OF  GOD  CAN  NEITHER  BE  GAINED  NOR 

LOST. 

i 

It  matters  not  how  man  conducts  himself,  whether 
ill  or  well,  the  great  God  regards  him  with  the  same 
complacency  and  pleasure.  God's  mind  is  not  in  the 


GOD'S  FAVOR  NEVER  LOST.  201 

God's  wrath  is  all  Jove.  God  never  angry. 

least  degree  affected  by  our  sins ;  he  always  loves  us, 
and  all  of  us,  with  his  whole  heart  and  soul,  and  none 
the  less  because  of  any  sins  that  we  may  have  com- 
mitted in  this  frail  state. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  by  a  good  Universal ist,  how- 
ever conscience  may  trouble  him,  and  remorse  may 
seize  upon  him,  that  God  can  ever  be  displeased  with 
the  work  of  his  own  hands.  No,  not  even  with  Pha- 
raoh, when  he  poured  on  Egypt  the  vials  of  his  wrath ; 
nor  with  Israel  when  he  swore  in  his  wrath  that  they 
should  not  enter  into  his  rest ;  nor  with-  Korah  and  his 
crew,  when  the  earth  opened  and  swallowed  them  up  ; 
nor  with  the  nations  of  Canaan,  when  he  gave  them  to 
the  exterminating  sword  ;  nor  with  Ahab  and  Jezebel ; 
nor  wiih  that  generation  of  Israel,  that  went  into  cap- 
tivity ;  nor  with  that  which  "  killed  the  Lord  of  life  ;" 
nor  with  that  which  witnessed  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  felt  its  accompanying  and  unparalleled  hor- 
rors and  woes! 

All  this  was  LOVE — the  means  of  still  greater  good 
— a  light  affliction,  working  for  them  '  a  far  more  ex- 
ceeding and  eternal  weight  of  glory.'  It  is  out  of  the 
question,  say  they,  that  God  can  ever  become  unrecon- 
ciled to  man,  whether  he  be  a  Herod,  a  Nero,  or  a 
Caesar  Borgia* 

"  It  is  plain,"  says  Mr.  Ballou,  speaking  of  Adam's 
first  sin,  ('  Treatise  on  Atonement,'  p.  102,)  "  that  a 
material  change  had  taken  place  in  Adam :  but  can 
we  prove,  that  any  alteration  happened  in  God?  It  is 
very  evident,  that  Adam  was  unreconciled  to  God  ;  but 


202  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

God  not  affected  by  Adam's  sin.  All  equally  beloved.' 

it  is  equally  as  evident,  that  God  was  not  unreconciled 
to  him. — To  say  that  God  loved  man  any  less  after 
transgression  than  before,  denies  his  unchangeability." 
Just  as  if  the  unchangeability  of  God  required  him  to 
love  sin  just  as  much  as  holiness !  But  proceeds  Mr. 
B.  (p.  104,)  "  God  being  infinite  in  all  his  glorious  at- 
tributes, he  can  by  no  means  love  at  one  time,  and 
hate  the  same  object  at  another. — The  Almighty  had 
TIO  occasion  to  dislike  Mam  after  transgression,  any 
more  than  he  had  even  before  he  made  him !"  This 
view  upturns  orthodoxy  at  once,  and  convicts,  if  true, 
even  prophets  and  apostles  of  heresy. 

The  same  sentiments  he  presents  again  and  again. 
"  If  we  carefully  examine  the  conduct  of  the  Divine 
Being  towards  Adam,  before  and  after  transgression, 
(4  Lect.  Sermons,'  pp.  25, 26,)  shall  we  find  any  thing  to 
justify  the  belief,'  that  Adam  was  not  equally  the  object 
of  divine  favor  after  he  sinned  as  he  was  before  ? — Was 
Saul  less  the  object  of  divine  favor  before  conversion 
than  afterward  1  Were  we  less  beloved  by  him  [Christ,] 
— before  he  washed  us  than  afterward  1  The  hearer 
will  easily  perceive  that  these  queries  all  tend  to  show, 
that  no  change  in  man  can  effect  any  change  in  God. 
— His  love  to  his  creatures  can  never  increase  nor  de- 
crease." He  adds,  (p.  27,)  that  "  all  are  equally  the 
objects  of  Divine  love ;"  and  (p.  28,)  that  "  the  com- 
mon doctrine,  which  teaches  that  our  Father,  who  is 
in  heaven,  loves  those  who  love  him,  but  has  treasured 
up  everlasting  vengeance  against  his  enemies,  is  sub- 
versive of  the  gospel  and  religion  of  Jesus." 


GOD'S  FAVOR  M-lVlill    LOST.  203 

God  never  an  enemy.  No  sin  can  turn  liirfi. 

But  what  does  God  mean  when  he  says, — "  If  I 
whet  my  glittering  sword,  and  mini;  hand  take  hold  on 
judgment,  I  will  render  vengeance  to  mine  enemies  ? — 
and  in  another  place,  "  who  shall  be  punished  with 
everlasting  destruction  ?"  Which  of  these  is  the 
authority  ? 

The  hearers  of  this  prodigy  in  theology  are  caution- 
ed (p.  32,)  against  "  any  belief,  which — involves  the 
notion  that  God  ever  was,  or  ever  can  be  an  enemy  to 
any  of  the  works  of  his  hands."  He  .maintains, 
(p.  152,)  that  "  the  opinion  that  our  Heavenly  Father 
became  inimical  to  man  in  consequence  of  his  sin  is — 
repugnant  to  the  essential  character  of  the  Divim 
Being ;"  and  (p.  309,)  "  that  neither  sin  nor  any  thing 
else  was  ever  the  cause  of  enmity  in  God  towards  man."' 
Mr.  0.  A.  Skinner  goes  so  far  as  to  tell  us,  ('  Un.  111. 
and  Def./  p.  116,)  that  "  the  Scriptures  no  where 
style  God  our  enemy ;"  no,  not  even  when  God  says, 
(Ex.  xxiii.  22,)  "  1  will  be  an  enemy  to  thine  enemir-. 
and  an  adversary  unto  thine  adversaries  ;"  nor  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  16,)  when  Samuel  says  to  Saul,  "  the  Lord  is 
departed  from  thee,  and  is  become  thine  enemy  /"  nor 
Isa.  Ixiii.  10,)  when  it  is  said  of  God,  "  therefore  he 
was  turned  to  be  their  enemy,  and  he  fought  against 
them."  Now  whom  are  we  to  believe — Messrs.  Bal- 
lou  and  Skinner,  or  "  holy  men  of  God,"  who  "  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?" 

Mr.  Williamson  assures  us,  ('  Univ.  Union,  VI.  No.  7,) 
that "  such  is  the  love  of  God,  sin  and  iniquity  and  the 
most  vile  ingratitude  in  all  their  aggravation  and  ex- 


204  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT    IS. 

Sinners  nothing  to  fear.  Prayer  no  effect  on  God. 

cess  cannot  'turn  it  away.  It  pours  its  wondrous  flood 
over  all  the  earth,  and  reaches,  with  its  healing  waters, 
the  case  of  the  most  desperate  child  of  sin  and  sorrow. 
I  am  aware,"  he  adds,  that  many,  [all  the  world  be- 
side,] "  suppose  sin  has  power  to  interpose  an  effectual 
barrier  to  the  love  of  God,  and  cause  him  to  forsake  his 
creatures.  But  you  will  not  fail  to  perceive  that  such 
a  sentiment  would  falsify  the  position  laid  down  in  the 
text."  The  vilest  sinner,  therefore,  need  not  fear,  that 
he  has  forfeited  at  all  the  favor  of  God. 

One"  more  example  from  Mr.  Ballou  will  suffice, 
"  The  necessity  and  utility  of  religion,  ((  Expositor,'  I. 
28,)  according  to  common  opinion,  is  on  the  one  hand, 
to  obtain  or  secure  the  divine  favor ;  and,  on  the  other, 
to  be  screened  from  the  displeasure  of  the  Almighty. 
But  if  our  deductions  are  allowed  to  stand,  it  is  very 
clear  that  the  divine  favor  can  neither  be  gained  nor 
lost."  Which  is  the  same  as  to  say — let  man  do  what 
he  will,  he  cannot  alienate  from  him  the  love  of  God; 
it  will  make  no  difference  in  the  feelings  of  God  to- 
wards the  sinner.  A  sentiment  than  which  it  wrould  be 
difficult  to  find  one  more  directly  contradictory  of  the 
plainest  teachings  of  Scripture. 

Accordingly  they  infer  from  this  doctrine,  that  Pray- 
er has  no  effect  on  God.  "  The  whole  effect  of  prayer  j* 
we  are  told,  in  '  the  Universalist  Manual,  or  Book  of 
Prayers,"  (pp.  27,  28,  39,)  "  and  of  every  other  reli- 
gious duty,  must  be  upon  ourselves,  and  not  upon  the 
Supreme  and  independent  Creator."  "  But  it  may  be 
inquired — If  prayers  have  no  effect  on  God,  in  what 


GOD'S    FAVOR  NEVER  LOST.  205 

UK  of  prnyrr .  Glad  tidings. 

does  their  utility  consist  ?  We  answer  as  before — In 
the  effect  they  have  upon  ourselves  and  upon  com- 
munity" "  Without,  therefore,  supposing  any  altera- 
tion to  be  effected  in  the  disposition  or  the  purposes  of 
the  Almighty,  in  relation  to  mankind,  by  prayer  or 
other  religious  devotions,  their  utility  may  be  inferred 
from  their  being  divinely  enjoined,  and  from  their  in- 
fluence upon  the  minds  and  the'  conduct  of  men."  "  It 
should  be  considered  a  great  privilege  as  well  as  a 
great  duty.  Not,  let  it  be  repeated,  with  the  view 
that  it  will  effect  any  sort  of  change  in  the  Supreme 
Being  in  his  disposition,  in  his  will,  or  in  his  purposes" 

What  wretched  work  does  this  make  of  all  those 
promises  which  are  based  on  the  condition  of  our  pray- 
ing ?  Does  not  such  a  view  make  prayer  utterly  use- 
less as  far  as  the  Divine  Being  is  concerned  ?  He  is 
not,  in  the  least  degree,  more  favorably  disposed  to  any 
of  us,  whether  we  pray  or  not !  Can  it  be  any  longer 
thought  wonderful  that  prayer  is  almost  unknown 
among  Universalists,  except  in  public  worship  ?  Very 
rarely  do  even  their  ministers  maintain  family-prayer, 
or  ever  give  thanks  at  their  meals,  or  observe  the  form 
of  entering  their  closets,  and  praying  secretly  and  vo- 
cally to  their  Father  in  heaven !  And  why  should 
they  ?  If  a  child  knew  that  it  made  no  kind  of  differ- 
ence with  his  parent  whether  he  asked,  or  not,  for  what 
he  wanted,  would  he  trouble  himself  to  ask  ?  What  a 
mockery  such  prayer  would  be ! 

Now  all  this  must  be  '  glad  tidings,'  indeed,  of 
18 


206  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Patrons  of  Universalism.  Nucleus  of  ita  Societies. 

(  great  joy,'  to  every  blood-thirsty,  polluted,  and  aban- 
doned wretch  on  earth.  And  no  wonder  is  it,  that 
such  men  are  such  warm  adherents  to  our  Modern  Uni- 
versalism. Glad  enough  are  they  to  find  that  the 
Bible  can  thus  be  explained  to  favor  their  carnal  and 
vile  propensities,  to  give  the  lie,  not  only  to  orthodox 
preachers — those  great  troublers  of  the  world,  but  to  a 
greater  troubler  still — their  own  conscience. 

Universalist  preachers,  though  they  often  endeavor 
to  evade  the  force  of  the  fact,  are  not  ignorant  that 
their  doctrines  find  most  favor  with  such  men.  Speak- 
ing of  the  most  abandoned  class  among  the  Jews  in  the 
days  of  our  Savior,  Mr.  Whittemore  remarks,  {'  Para- 
bles,' p.  195,)  that  "  this  class  of  people  became  ex- 
ceedingly fond  of  the  society  of  Jesus,  and  listened  to 
his  instructions  with  great  delight. — Despised  as  they 
were  by  the  leading  religious  people  of  the  age,  accus- 
tomed to  reproach  and  contumely,  they  rejoiced  to  find 
their  cause  espoused  by  the  great  teacher  sent  from  God. 
His  doctrine  met  and  satisfied  their  desires,  and  they 
received  it  with  joy. — We  learn  from  this,  what  class  of 
people  it  is,  among  whom  at  the  present  day,  the  doctrine 
of  the  impartial  Savior  shall  flourish  in  its  purity." 

Yes,  if  any  one  wishes  to  find  the  genuine  patrons  of 
Universalism,  let  him  go  among  the  lawless,  intempe- 
rate, and  profane.  It  is  such,  who  first  congregate,  as 
we  all  know,  in  every  village  and  town  in  the  land, 
around  the  first  preachers  of  this  <  impartial'  doctrine, 
and  form  the  nucleus  of  almost  every  Universalist  So- 


207 

Its  warmest  friends. 


ciety  in  the  whole  country.  And  what  is  equally  mani- 
fest they  love  the  doctrine  most,  when  most  wedded  to 
their  sins. 

" neglecting  a'  that's  guid, 

They  riot  in  excess ! 

Baith  careless  and  fearless 
Of  either  heav'n  or  hell, 

Etfteeming  and  deeming 
It  a' an  idle  tale," 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER. 

Sense  of  accountability  in  a  future  state  nearly  universal — 
Effort  to  get  rid  of  this  responsibility — Mortal  life  not  pro- 
bationary to  another — Conduct  here  nothing  to  do  with  con- 
dition hereafter — Boston  Discussion — No  punishment  after 
death  essential  to  the  system — Folly  to  talk  of  securing  an 
interest  in  Christ— Paul  and  Nero  fare  alike  hereafter. 

"  The  voice  of  nature  loudly  cries, 
And  many  a  message  from  the  skies, 
That  something  in  us  never  dies  ; 
That  on  this  frail  uncertain  state, 
Hang  matters  of  eternal  weight ; 
That  future  life,  in  worlds  unknown, 
Must  take  its  hue  from  this  alone ; — 
Whether  as  heav'nly  glory  bright, 
Or  dark  as  mis'ry's  woeful  night." — BURNS. 

THEY,  who  have  believed  in  a  future  state  of  being, 
have,  with  very  few  exceptions,  in  every  age  of  the 
world,  whether  Jews,  Pagans,  Moslems,  or  Christians, 
regarded  human  life  as  a  state  of  probation  for  eter- 
nity. The  common  sense  of  the  world,  as  well  as  their 
knowledge  of  the  Bible,  has  taught  them  to  expect  that 
their  happiness,  or  condition,  hereafter,  depends  on  their 
conduct  here— rthat  the  character  formed  in  this  life 


THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER.          209 
Probation,  exploded. 

gives  character  to  their  eternal  being.     On  this  point 
the  agreement  is  wonderful ; 

"  Tis  the  divinity  that  stirs  within  us," 

that  thus  teaches  us  to  shape  all  our  conduct  here,  so 
that  we  may  be  happy  hereafter. 

But  what  truth  is  too  sacred  for  those  who  are  de- 
termined that  there  shall  not  be  the  least  probability  of 
punishment  in  a  future  state,  and  who,  to  quiet  their 
own  conscience,  try  their  utmost  to  lull  the  consciences 
of  their  fellow-sinners  to  sleep  also  ?  There  is  no  end 
to  their  discoveries  in  theology.  One  antiquated  tra- 
dition is  no  sooner  *  exploded,'  than  another  receives 
the  same  treatment.  They  care  but  little  how  preva- 
lent the  doctrine  may  have  been,  even  among  the 
learned,  the  wise,  the  good,  the  holy,  and  the  vene- 
rable. The  fathers  were  but  babes  compared  with 
these.  Giants  there  were  in  those  days,  but  these  have 
far  outstripped  them.  They  are  the  people,  and  wis- 
dom must  die  with  them.  How  blessed  are  we  who 
are  permitted  to  walk  in  the  light  of  such  luminaries, 

"  Which  kings  and  prophets  waited  for, 
And  sought  but  never  found  !" 

The  next  great  discovery  to  which  the  reader's  at- 
tention will  be  directed,  concerns  the  connection  of 
time  with  eternity.  They  have  ascertained,  and  are 
endeavoring  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  supposed 
fact,  that 

18* 


210  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

No  trial  for  eternity.  The  case  settled. 

XVIII. — MORTAL  LIFE  is  NOT,  IN  ANY  SENSE,  A  STATE  OF 

PROBATION  FOR  ANOTHER  STATE  OF  BEING. 

They  have  discovered  that  nothing,  that  a  man  does 
here,  affects  in  the  least  degree  his  condition  hereafter ; 
he  is  not  on  trial  for  eternity ;  it  matters  not,  as  far  as 
another  world  is  concerned,  how  he  lives  or  dies. 

Speaking  of  the  common  views  in  regard  to  a  "  day 
of  probation"  the  author  of ( Lecture-Sermons '  says,  (p. 
85,)  "  this  subject  is  erroneously  represented,  as  if  we 
were  to  receive  eternal  life  as  a  reward  for  knowing 
God  in  a  certain  given  time,  called  the  time  of  our  pro- 
bation." "  The  common  doctrine  of  the  church  (p.  369,) 
contends  that  if  men  do  not  repent  of  their  sins  in  this 
life,  they  will  not  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  repenting 
in  a  future  state,  and  therefore  must  remain  sinful  for- 
ever. Now  all  these  notions  are  the  offspring  of  imagi- 
nation) and  have  no  foundation  in  reason  nor  in  the 
Scripture  of  truth."  Again  he  says,  (p.  337,)  "  there 
surely  is  not  the  shadow  of  propriety  in  supposing  that 
a  state  of  permanent  felicity  in  the  eternal  world  is 
according  to  our  works  in  this." 

It  will  readily  be  perceived  that,  if  this  be  the  case, 
it  settles  at  once  the  meaning  of  those  knotty  words 
<  forever,'  c  everlasting,'  and '  eternal.'  Of  course,  they 
can  have  no  possible  reference  to  another  state  of  being, 
when  applied  to  the  consequences  of  human  conduct, 
if  that  conduct  has  no  connection  whatever  with  the 
future  state.  It  saves  much  trouble  in  the  philological, 
or  exegetical,  argument.  He,  who  denies  that  this  is  a 


THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER.         211 
Pint  principka.  No  agency  in  securing  heaven. 

state  probationary  to  another,  never  can  be  brought  to 
admit  that  such  words  relate  to  that  other  state  at  all. 
The  controversy,  therefore,  must  be  carried  back  to  the 
very  principles  of  religion. 

So  lately  as  December  26,  1840,  Mr.  Ballou  has 
published  to  the  world  in  the  '  Trumpet,'  "  the  most  re- 
cent improvements"  of  this  doctrine.  "  It  appears,"  he 
remarks,  "  that  man's  final  destiny  does  not  depend  on 
man,  but  on  God  who  made  him.  Among  the  nume- 
rous errors,  which  have  by  men  been  imbibed,  none 
been  greater  than  the  supposition,  that  revealed 
religion  was  designed,  by  the  Creator,  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  to  us  a  state  of  immortality  beyond  our 
present  mode  of  existence.  Such  a  supposition  con- 
flicts with  the  fact,  that  man's  immortality  was  em- 
braced in  the  purpose  of  God  originally.  And  the 
opinion,  that  the  accommodations,  or  enjoyments  in  a 
future,  immortal  state,  depend  either  on  what  men  believe 
or  do  in  this  mortal  state,  is  an  opinion  which  sets  aside 
any  original  purpose,  will,  or  determination  of  the 
Creator,  respecting  these  weighty  matters." 

"As  man  is  heir,  by  the  law  and  constitution  of  his 
nature,  to  all  the  benefits  n -Milting  from  a  knowledge 
and  UM-  of  the  sciences  and  arts  which  have  been  dis- 
covered and  improved,  so  also  is  he,  by  a  divine  ar- 
rangement, heir  to  all  which  constitutes  the  well-being 
and  felicity  of  his  moral  nature.  And  as  he  had  no 
agency  in  constituting  himself  an  heir  to  the  first  men- 
tioned inheritance,  so  has  he  no  agency  in  making  him- 
self an  heir  to  the  last." 


212  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Heaven  a  free  gift.  Human  deeds  limited  to  this  life. 

Here  we  are  told  that  we  have  no  more  to  do  with 
fitting  ourselves  for  the  resurrection-state,  or  the  state 
of  being  after  the  resurrection,  than  we  had  in  fitting 
ourselves  to  be  born  into  this  world.  In  plain  words, 
we  have  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  it.  Whatever  we  do, 
our  condition  in  a  future  state  will  not  be  affected  in 
the  least  degree.  Such  is  the  import  of  the  following 
language  also  from  the  same  Essay  : — "  All  which  be- 
longs to  man,  in  this  natural  world,  his  being  and  all 
his  faculties,  he  must  have  received,  as  a  free  .gift  from 
God,  before  he  could  even  attempt  any  work  of  his 
own.  If  what  the  gospel  of.  Jesus  Christ  teaches  is 
true,  if  through  it  life  and  immortality  are  brought  to 
light,  and  man  is  to  exist  hereafter  and  forever,  that 
state  of  being,  all  the  powers  and  faculties  which  in 
that  state  man  is  to  possess,  must  be  the  free  gift  of  God, 
independent  of  human  agency.  As  man's  natural,  mo- 
ral, and  religious  duties,  in  the  present  state,  are  all 
required  for  his  benefit  and  enjoyment,  while  he  is  in 
this  state,  and  as  they  all  grow  out  of  those  powers 
which  he  here  possesses,  as  the  free  gifts  of  God,  so  it 
is  reasonable  to  expect  that  man's  future  state  of  ex- 
istence, and  all  the  powers  and  faculties  he  may  there 
possess,  will  be  the  free  gift  of  God  j  and  that  his  duties 
there  will  be  according  to  that  state,  and  according  to 
his  powers  and  faculties  there  given,  and  for  his  use 
and  benefit  while  he  continues  in  being." 

It  cannot  be  admitted  for  a  moment,  by  the  leaders 
of  this  sect,  that  the  consequences  of  human  actions  in 
this  world  are  unlimited — that  they  extend  beyond  the 


THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER.          2  13 
Eoston  Diflcuvion.  No  future  retribution. 

present  life.  "  All  the"  moral  faculties  of  man,"  says 
Mr.  Kneeland,  ('  Lectures,'  p.  65,)  are  as  limited  in 
their  very  nature,  as  his  natural  faculties;  and  hence, 
the  consequences  of  all  our  moral  actions,  whether  in 
themselves  good  or  evil,  are  as  limited  as  the  conse- 
quences of  our  natural  actions,  which  we  know,  or  at 
least  have  every  reason  to  believe,  are  limited  to  time  ; 
and,  so  far  as  respects  the  individual  who  performs 
them,  to  his  own  natural  life."  This,  of  course,  shuts 
out  entirely  the  idea  that  mortal  life  is  a  state  of  pro- 
bation for  eternity. 

A  discussion  was  held  at  Boston,  commencing  March 
18,  1834,  and  continuing  three  days,  on  the  question, 
"  Do  the  holy  Scriptures  teach  the  doctrine,  that  men 
will  be  punished  and  rewarded  subsequently  to  this  life, 
or  after  death,  for  the  deeds  done  in  this  life  ?"  In  other 
words,  has  man  "  any  thing  to  gain  or  to  lose  after 
death  by  his  conduct  in  this  life  ?"  or,  is  man  on  pro- 
bation for  eternity  ?  The  affirmative  of  this  question 
was  advocated  by  Mr.  Adin  Ballou,  one  of  the  little 
band  of  Restorationists,  who  had  broken  off  from  the 
sect  of  Universalists.  The  proposal  came  from  Mr.  B., 
and  was  addressed  to  the  "  Rev.  Fathers  and  Teachers 
in  the  Israel  of  Universalism."  "  I  believe,"  he  says, 
"  what  you  disbelieve — that  the  holy  Scriptures  teach 
the  doctrine  of  a  future  righteous  retribution.  You 
consider  my  belief  *  a  relic  of  heathenism :'  I  consider 
your  disbelief  a  proximate  species  of  anti-Christian 
scepticism." 

It  was  then  distinctly  understood  that  "  Universal- 


214  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT   IS. 

Relic  of  heathenism.  Curious  expositions. 

ism,"  properly  so  called,  denied  all  future  retribution 
in  another  state  of  being  for  the  actions  of  this, — and 
that  they  regarded  such  a  doctrine — both  "  Fathers 
and  Teachers"  as  a  "  relic  of  heathenism." 

Mr.  Daniel  D.  Smith,  of  Boston,  defended  the  nega- 
tive, denying  that  man  is  to  be  either  rewarded  or  pu- 
nished hereafter  for  what  he  does  here.  In  defending 
his  position,  he  would  not  admit,  (p.  12,)  "  that 
Christ  was  rewarded  in  a  future  state  for  /his  do- 
ings here ;"  and  maintained  (p.  13,)  that,  when  the 
Savior  said  to  his  disciples, — "  great  is  your  reward  in 
Heaven"  "  it  was  in  their  own  minds,  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  their  own  rectitude,  that  they  had  their  re- 
ward;"— that  (p.  22,)  when  the  Savior  said  of  "the 
poor,  the  maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind," — "  they  cannot 
recompense  thee ;  for  thou  shalt  be  recompensed  at  the 
resurrection  of  the  just,"  "  Christ  intended  to  be  under- 
stood, that,  in  the  course  of  time,  and  the  order  of  Pro- 
vidence, those  poor  people  whom  they  might  entertain, 
would  be  raised  from  the  obscurity  of  their  present  con- 
dition, and  would  fully  recompense  the  favors  they 
might  have  received  in  the  times  of  their  lowliness !" — 
"  We  are  informed,"  he  adds  (p.  26,)  "  that  the  future 
life  is  the  free  gift  of  God. — If  such  is  the  case,  if  it  is 
the  free  gift  of  God,  how  can  it  possibly  have  any  thing 
to  do  with  this  life,  or  be  in  any  way  whatever  con- 
nected with  it  ?  If  you  would  connect  the  life  to  come 
with  the  present  life,  you  must  show  that  it  is,  in  all 
respects,  like  the  present  life."  He  concludes  the  dis- 
cussion by  averring,  (p.  86,)  "  I  think  I  have  shown, 


THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER.          215 
No  passport  to  heaven  needed.  Categorical  answer*. 

that  the  doctrine,  which  my  friend  maintains,  was  a  tra- 
dition of  the  Pharisees,  and  as  such  condemned  by  Je- 
M  Christ." 

\Ve  are  told  of  Mr.  Le  Fevre,  ('  Gospel  Anchor,"  II. 
289,)  that "  he  does  not  believe  that  men  are  probation- 
ers here  for  eternity.  Our  good  conduct  here  is  not  our 
passport  to  heaven  and  immortality  hereafter;  neither 
will  our  bad  conduct  here  cause  us  to  be  raised  up  im- 
mortal sinners  and  immortal  sufferers.  The  gift  of  im- 
mortality is  the  gift  of  God  totally  unconnected  with 
our  conduct  in  the  flesh."  He  tells  us  himself,  that 
(<  Universalist  Union,'  IV.  302,-'3,)  "  there  is  no  opinion 
more  current  in  the  church,  than  that  man  is,  in  his 
present  existence, '  a  probationer  for  eternity,'  and  that 
according  as  he  conducts  himself  in  this  '  probationary 
state,'  so  will  his  everlasting  destiny  be  determined. 
Universalists  deny  the  correctness  of  this  sentiment, 
and  they  do  so  on  what  to  them  appears  sufficient 
grounds — first,  it  is  contrary  to  reason,  and  secondly,  it 
is  unsupported  by  Scripture." 

The  categorical  manner  in  which  Mr.  Whittemore 
disposes  of  this  question  ('  Plain  Guide,'  p.  271,)  is 
curious  enough.  "  Who  says,  the  present  is  a  state  of 
of  probation  ?  Answer.  The  writer  of  the  objections 
before  us.  Does  the  Bible  say  so  ?  JVb."  Mr.  Tho- 
mas declares,  ('  Discussion,'  p.  280,)  that  "  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus — destroys  the  popular  notion,  that  the 
condition  of  man  in  the  future  state  will  be  determined 
by  his  character  or  conduct  in  this."  He  speaks  also 


216  •     UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Life's  feeble  strings.  Future  bliss  unconditional. 

of  "  the  folly  of  the  inquiries  which 'are  so  frequently 
made  as  to  the  condition  in  which  a  man  has  died.4' 

Mr.  0.  A.  Skinner  tells  us,  (p.  173,  b,)  that  he  "  can- 
not believe  that  our  eternal  interests  are  hung  upon 
ife's  feeble  strings."  Mr.  Fernald  is  quite  indignant 
at  our  doctrine.  He  cannot  endure  it.  "  We  deny," 
he  says,  (p.  264,)  "  that  our  eternal  destiny  hereafter 
is  to  depend  upon  our  characters  here.  A  more  mon- 
strous idea  could  not  be  conceived,  upon  the  subject  of 
our  salvation."  Mr.  Williamson  is  very  plain  :  "  The 
popular  sentiment  (p.  96,)  is,  that  we  are,  in  this  world 
probationers  for  eternity,  and  that  the  punishment  of 
sin  is  reserved  to  another  world  and  will  be  endless  in 
duration.  Our  views  are  widely  different  from  this. 
We  do  not  believe  there  is  the  least  possible  Scripture  for 
saying  that  man  is  placed  in  this  world  as  a  probationer 
for  another." 

Mr.  Lewis,  in  an  exposition  of  the  (  Universalist  Be- 
lief,' affirms,  (<  Mag.  and  Adv.'  VIII.  26,)  that  "  Uni- 
versalists  believe  that  although  salvation  in  this  world 
is  evidently  conditional,  that  is  to  say,  is  enjoyed  only 
by  means  of  faith,  good  works,  &c.,  yet  that  salvation 
in  a  state  of  immortality,  is,  by  no  means  suspended 
upon  any  exercises  or  acts  of  the  creature,  while  in  this 
state  of  being. — The  object  of  pure  religion,  as  pos- 
sessed and  practised  in  this  life,  is  not  to  purchase  or 
secure  the  blessings  of  an  hereafter-state  of  being,  but 
to  benefit  mankind  here,  by  rendering  them  better  and 
happier." 

Another  writer  in  the  same  volume,  (p.  284,)  re- 


THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER.          217 

Probation  IT  !th<-i  wise  nor  good.  A  palpable  incongruity. 

marks,  that  "  the  doctrine  of  probation,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  misery,  are  fundamentals  in  a  system, 
which  acknowledges  that  God  is  good  and  just !  How 
do  they  harmonize  ?  Where  is  the  wisdom  or  the 
goodness  of  forcing  into  existence  a  race  of  beings  for 
the  only  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  in  another 
state  of  being  they  are  fit  to  be  made  happy  or  mise- 
rable ?  Is  it  either  wise  or  good  to  sport  thus  with 
the  destiny  of  intelligent  beings  ? — Away,  then,  with 
a  system  which  ascribes  to  God  a  character,  which  we 
should  be  ashamed  to  bear  ourselves  !" 

One  of  the  correspondents  of  the  '  Universalist  Union,' 
(IV.  157,)  holds  the  following  language  in  relation 
to  the  common  doctrine  of  probation : — "  It  does  not 
appear  to  be  founded  on  a  just  view  of  the  nature  of 
man,  under  the  moral  government  of  God  ;  nor  does  it 
accord  at  all  with  the  divine  attributes. — We  dissent 
from  this  opinion,  and  we  have  many,  various,  and 
strong  reasons  for  so  doing.  One, "and  a  sufficient 
reason  is,  that  it  makes  the  future  world  exactly  like 
the  present,  than  which  there  cannot  be  a  greater  mis- 
take, view  it  as  we  will."' 

In  the  <  Trumpet'  of  Sept.  26,  1840,  is  an  article, 
copied  from  the  Nazarene,  which  scouts  the  very  idea 
ich  a  probation.  "  Some  people  suppose  the  divine 
purpose  in  creation  was  to  place  man  in  this  world  to 
make  preparation  for  eternity.  Now  although  this 
doctrine  is  quite  common  in  Christendom,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  conceive  of  any  thing  more  palpably  incon- 
gruous and  absurd.  God  could  not  have  intended  that 
19 


218  UNIVERSALISM   AS  IT  IS. 

Immortal  interests  not  iu  our  hands.  No  punishment  after  death. 

man  should  be  the  subject  of  trial,  and  a  probationer 
for  eternity  in  this  life!"  The  writer  of  this  article  de- 
nies that  the  Scriptures  teach  "  that  God  has  placed 
our  immortal  interests  in  our  own  hands."  "  Where," 
he  asks,  "  in  all  God's  truth  do  we  read  that  the  great 
business  of  life  is  to  prepare  for  eternity,  and  that  our 
endless  weal  or  wo  will  be  decided  by  our  own  uncer- 
tain choice !" 

These  numerous  references  must  surely  satisfy  every 
reader  that  this  is  a  fundamental  point  with  our  modern 
Universalists ;  they  seem  to  be  wonderfully  agreed  in 
maintaining  that  this  life  is  not,  in  any  sense,  proba- 
tionary to  another  state  of  being.  Let  this  matter, 
then,  be  well  understood,  and  borne  in  mind.  It 
serves  to  throw  light  on  some  other  parts  of  their 
creed  which  are  not  so  boldly  asserted. 

I  have  been  the  more  particular  in  bringing  forward 
numerous  witnesses,  in  reference  to  this  peculiarity  of 
their  creed,  that  I  might  show  how  general  is  their 
belief  in  no  punishment  after  death.  Such  unanimity 
on  the  subject  of  probation  certainly  shows  equal  una- 
nimity in  the  disbelief  of  any  punishment  hereafter — in 
the  limitation  of  all  punishment,  such  as  it  is,  to  this 
life.  It  is  thus  made  clear  that  no  punishment  after 
death,  however  unwilling  they  may  be  to  admit  it  in 
so  many  words,  is  an  essential  article  of  their  creed.  It 
follows  inevitably  from  their  system. 

Entertaining  such  views  of  human  life,  it  is  no  won- 
der that  they  are  opposed  to  revivals  of  religion,  and 
all  those  preachers  whose  rousing  appeals  wake  up 


THIS  LITE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER.         219 
The  true  ministry.  Not  set  to  watch  for  souls. 

the  community  to  a  deep  concern  for  their  future  well- 
being.  It  is  easy  to  account  for  the  fact  that  they  un- 
dertake no  mission  to  heathen  lands,  nor  attempt  to 
establish  themselves  among  the  aborigines  of  our  own 
neighborhood.  They  ridicule  the  gospel- ministry — 
men  whose  shoe-latchets  they  are  unworthy  to  loose — 
as  visionary  fanatics.  "  Nor  is  it  the  work  of  the  true 
gospel-ministry,"  says  their  oracle,  (Parables,  p.  36,) 
"  to  initiate  mankind  into  any  scheme  by  which  they 
may  secure  to  themselves  the  love,  favor,  or  mercy  of 
God ;  or  whereby  they  may  obtain  an  heirship  with 
the  sons  of  God."  None  are  true  ministers  but  they. 
"  When  the  preacher  forgets  Christ,  and  preaches,  ex- 
horts, and  warns  the  people  to  secure  an  interest  in 
Christ,  and  sets  forth  the  awful  consequences  of  neg- 
lect, he  is  very  far  from  being  a  faithful  and  true  wit- 
ness." Do  you  hear  that,  Paul  ?  How  could  you  be 
so  unfaithful  as  to  ask  that  searching  question — "  How 
shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation  ?"  and 
to  utter  so  many  other  warnings  against  those  who  re- 
ject the  gospel  ?  The  "  true  and  faithful  witness," 
Hosea  Ballou,  takes  rank  before  you.  Henceforth, 
men  will  ask,  not '  What  does  Paul  say  V  but—*  What 
says  Hosea  V 

Hear,  too,  how  Walter  Balfour,  the  perfection  of 
learning,  condemns  those  of  us  who  fear  that  the  blood 
of  our  fellow-sinners  may  be  required  at  our  hands. — 
"  It  is  a  false  notion,  (*  Essays,'  p.  31,)  that  ministers 
are  appointed  to  watch  over  the  immortal  souls  of  their 
hearers,  and  if  any  of  them  should  go  to  hell  through 


220  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Missions  exploded.  No  matter  how  a  man  dies. 

their  carelessness,  they  have  to  give  an  accouut  of  this 
in  a  day  of  general  judgment  at  the  end  of  this  world." 
This  he  says  in  the  very  face  of  that  declaration  of 
Paul, — "  They  watch  for  your  souls  as  they  that  must 
give  account."  But  what  is  Paul  to  him?  Is  not 
Walter  the  wisest  of  the  two  ?  Has  he  not  had  the 
advantage  of  the  noon-day  light  of  the  19th  century  ? 
Paul  was  brought  up  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel  ;  but 
Walter  sat  under  the  shadow  of  Hosea  himself. 

For  this  reason  he  is  able  also  to  see  through  the 
folly  of  sending  missionaries  to  the  heathen  to  save 
their  souls  from  hell.  "  So  far,"  he  says,  (p.  113,)  "  as 
the  object  of  missions  is  to  save  immortal  souls  from 
an  endless  hell,  or  any  punishment  whatever  in  a  dis- 
embodied state,  a  final  end  is  put  to  all  missionary 
zeal  and  exertion. — What  immense  sums  have' teen  ex- 
pended in  endeavoring  to  accomplish  what  never  need- 
ed to  be  done !  The  object  proposed  is  entirely  ima- 
ginary, and  it  is  high  time  a  stop  should  be  put  to  this 
soul-saving  business,  and  the  zeal  and  money  expend- 
ed turned  into  a  better  channel." 

With  these  men,  it  is  no  matter  whether  a  man  dies 
happy  or  not,  though  they  are  continually  trying  to 
impose  their  creed  upon  the  community  by  long  stories 
about  Universalists  who  have  died  in  peace.  Mr. 
Balfour  says,  (p.  117,)  "  If  my  views  are  correct,  peo- 
ple's anxieties  and  fears,  relative  to  the  condition  of 
their  souls  after  death,  are  for  ever  put  to  rest.  Men 
have  been  -taught  that  .their  immortal  souls  must  go  to 
heaven  or  hell  at  death.  To  die  right  then,  must  be 


THIS  LIFE  NOT  PROBATIONARY  TO  ANOTHER.         221 
Judicial  oaths  preposterous.  Nero  will  fare  as  well  aa  Paul. 

the  first  object  of  concern."  "  Their  minds  are  direct- 
ed (p.  118,)  to  a  mere  heathen  notion,  and  no  wonder  it 
should  give  little  solid  satisfaction,  either  in  life  or 
death." 

How  lamentably,  criminally,  and  stupidly  ignorant, 
according  to  these  men,  must  the  Christian  world  be, 
of  the  very  first  principles  of  religion !  What  folly  is 
it  to  administer  an  oath  in  a  court  of  justice,  if  the  ac- 
tions of  this  life  have  nothing  to  do  with  another  world  \ 
Or  what  need  a  Universalist  care  for  such  an  oath  ? — 
Most  men  expect  that  they  will  be  either  better  or 
worse  in  another  state  of  being,  for  their  conduct  in 
this.  But  this  is  all  wrong,  if  this  life  is  not  a  state  of 
probation.  In  that  case,  John,  the  beloved  disciple, 
and  Judas,  will  be  exactly  on  a  par  in  the  future 
world.  Paid  will  fare  no  better  than  Nero.  Godli- 
ness hath  promise  of  the  life  to  come  no  more  than  un- 
godliness. Apostates  will  receive  the  crown  of  life 
just  as  well  as  those  who  are  faithful  unto  death ;  and 
they  that  hate  God  as  truly  as  they  that  love  him. 
They  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  will  shine  as  the 
stars  forever  and  ever,  and  so  will  they  that  are  ring- 
leaders in  dissipation  and  crime ; 

"  Lioe  as  you  please,  yours  is  th'  immortal  prize." 

And  are  there  found,  in  this  community,  men  who, 
with  the  Bible  in  their  hands,  stand  up  and  proclaim 
all  this  as  Christianity — the  religion  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth 1 — And  do  they  think  that  we  are  all  such  simple- 
tons, and  have  such  confidence  in  their  superior  dis- 
19* 


222  UNFVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Presumption.  Who  will  hear  them. 

cernment  and  piety,  that  we  will  all  run  after  them 
like  a  flock  of  sheep  ?  Hearers  they  will  find  un- 
doubtedly ;  for  we  are  told  that  "  the  time  will  come 
when  they  will  not  endure  sound  doctrine ;  but  after 
their  own  lusts  shall  they  heap  to  themselves  teachers, 
having  itching  ears ;  and  they  shall  turn  away  their 
ears  from  the  truth,  and  shall  be  turned  unto  fables." 
Such  hearers  they  may  and  will  continue  to  have.  But 
the  world  must  run  back  into  barbarism  again,  before 
a  creed,  that  so  outrages  the  plainest  teachings  of  the 
Bible,  and  common  sense,  can  obtain  '  universal' 
credence. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

FAITH    NOT   NECESSARY    TO     FUTURE    HAPPINESS. 

Future  happiness  not  dependent  on  faith— Faith  is  simple  be- 
lief in  evidence— Faith  not  distinguished  into  various  kinds 
— Religion  here  not  necessary  to  happiness  hereafter— Faith 
not  necessary  to  justification— Universalism  aims  only  to  do 
men  good  here — Their  indifference  to  the  woes  of  the  hea- 
then—Have  much  the  same  anxiety  as  the  apostles  had — But 
never  show  it. 

•'  What  signifies  his  barren  shine 
Of  moral  pow'ra  and  reason  ? 
His  English  ftyle  an'  gesture  fine 

Are  a'  clean  out  o*  season  ; 
Like  Socrates,  or  Antonine, 

Or  some  old  pagan  heathen  ; 

The  moral  man  he  does  define, 

But  ne'er  a  word  o'  FAITH  in 

That's  right  that  day." — BURNS. 

IF  it  be  admitted,  that  what  we  do  in  this  world  has 
nothing  to  do  with  our  condition  in  another,  as  Univer- 
salism maintains,  then,  it  follows  without  doubt  that,  so 
far  as  a  future  state  is  concerned,  it  matters  not  what 
we  believe.  A  man  is  none  the  better  for  another 
world  by  believing  Universalism,  or  Orthodoxy — Chris- 
tianity, or  Infidelity.  He  may  be  a  Deist,  an  Atheist, 
or  a  Pagan ;  and  yet  fare  just  as  well  in  the  resurrec- 
tion-state, as  though  he  were  a  Christian.  The  conse- 


224  UNFVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

No  need  of  Faith.  Faith  affects  this  life  only. 

quences  of  his  faith  are  all  limited  to  this  mortal  life. 
Let  us  hear  how  confidently  they  affirm  that 

XIX. — FAITH  HAS  NO  CONNECTION  WITH  HAPPINESS  IN  A 

FUTURE  STATE. 

Writing  to  Dr.  Ely,  in  1835,  Mr.  Thomas,  then  pastor 
of  a  Universalist  society  in  Philadelphia,  uses  this  lan- 
guage ;  (p.  284 ;) — "  And,  sir !  a  faithful  examination 
of  this  subject  in  the  light  I  have  presented  it,  will  satis- 
fy you  that  the  happiness  of  the  future  state  is  not  de- 
pendent on  the  exercise  of  faith  in  any  doctrine  what- 
ever.— Were  it  otherwise — were  the  immortal  condi- 
tion of  man  contingent  of  faith,  or  of  the  performance 
of  good  works,  there  would  be  no  certainty  of  the  sal- 
vation of  any  of  our  race."  So  (p.  283,)  he  says, 
"  The  popular  estimate  of  faith,  and  of  the  benefits  ac- 
cruing therefrom,  is  radically  erroneous. — Faith  is 
simply  the  result  of  evidence  which  the  mind  deems 
conclusive. — Truth  exists  independently  of  the  evidence 
of  it,  and  independently  also  of  the  action  of  the  mind." 
Therefore,  as  he  tries  to  show,  the  welfare  of  the  soul 
hereafter  cannot  be  affected  by  its  own  action,  its  be- 
lief or  unbelief. 

Similar  language  is  used  by  Mr.  Balfour  in  his  Let- 
ters to  Hudson.  "  You  seem  to  intimate,"  he  remarks, 
(p.  33,)  "  as  if  I  granted,  that  faith  and  obedience  here 
are  absolutely  necessary  to  partaking  of  the  immortal 
life  by  Jesus  Christ  beyond  death  and  the  grave.  But 
here  lies  another  of  your  mistaken  assumptions. — I 
maintain  that  faith  and  obedience  are  absolutely  neces- 


FAITH  NOT  NECESSARY  TO  FUTURE  HAPPINESS.        225 
All  on  a  par.  A  good  hope. 

sary  to  a  participation  of  the  privileges  and  blessings 
of  Christ's  kingdom  on  earth,  and  the  enjoyment  of  the 
hope  of  future  immortality  in  this  life.  But  it  is  not 
faith  and  obedience,  Sir!  but  being  raised  immortal  in 
the  resurrection,  equal  unto  the  angels  of  God,  which 
Jits  men  for  the  resurrection-state.  It  is  being  chil- 
dren of  the  resurrection,  not  sons  of  God  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus,  prepares  men  for  this  state  things. 
Without  this,  the  believer  is  no  more  fitted  for  it  than 
the  unbeliever" 

In  the  same  way  he  reasons  in  his  3d  Essay ;  (p. 
238,)  "  The  resurrection  of  all  in  the  last  day  depends 
entirely  on  the  fact,  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead  1  But, 
I  ask,  does  the  faith  or  unbelief  of  any  man,  in  any 
shape,  or  in  any  degree,  affect  the  truth  of  this  fact  ? 
No  ;  but  he  that  believes  enjoys  the  hope  and  consola- 
tion it  is  calculated  to  impart ;  and  he  that  believes  not 
abides  in  darkness,  and  is  made  wretched  by  his  very 
unbelief."  A  man's  faith  only  affects  his  present  con- 
dition— not  at  all  his  future.  So  says  Mr.  Balfour. 

Says  O.  A.  Skinner,  (pp.  324,  '5,  '6,)  "  What  is  the 
foundation  of  hope  ?  We  answer,  it  can  be  nothing 
connected  with  human  merit  or  faithfulness."  "  And 
yet,  when  Christians  talk  of  getting  a  hope,  they  mean 
they  get  that  virtue  and  faith  which  will  carry  them  to 
heaven. — How  different  from  the  apostle."  "  To  obtain  a 
hope  is  to  be  made  acquainted  with  this  plan  [of  grace,] 
and  learn  the  evidences  of  universal  happiness."  It 
matters  not  what  the  character  of  the  man  is,  if  he  only 
believes  that  all  men  will  be  forever  happy.  Then  he 


226  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Faith  defined.  Nothing  but  simplft  belief. 

may  hope.  And  this  is  what  the  scriptures  speak  of 
when  they  tell  us  of  a  "  good  hope  through  grace !" — 
Again  he  says,  (p.  266,) — "  So  far  as  admission  to  end- 
less glory  is  concerned,  the  saint  and  the  sinner  stand  on 
a  perfect  level"  But  as  no  one  can  be  a  saint  without 
faith,  it  is  perfectly  immaterial,  as  "  far  as  admission  to 
endless  glory  is  concerned,"  whether  a  man  believes  in 
Christ  or  not !  How  scriptural ! 

The  faith  of  the  Universalist  appears  to  differ  not  at 
all  from,  or  to  be  any  thing  more  than,  simple  belief  in 
evidence.  It  is  merely  the  assent  of  the  mind,  for  suf- 
ficient reasons,  to  the  truth  of  a  particular  statement  or 
proposition.  "  Christian  faith,"  says  Mr.  Williamson, 
(4  Exposition,'  pp.  184,  '5,)  "  is  a  belief  in  the  mission 
and  teachings  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  so  far  as  the 
nature  of  the  thing  itself  is  concerned,  it  differs  not  from 
faith  in  any  thing  else. — The  only  imaginable  differ- 
ence, in  different  cases,  is  not  in  the  thing  itself,  but  in 
the  subjects  upon  which  it  is  employed. — By  evidence 
the  judgment  is  convinced,  and  from  its  throne  gives 
out  the  decision — *  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.'  This  is  faith,  and  it  is  produced  by  the 
same  means,  and  is  in  its  nature  the  same  as  faith  exer- 
cised upon  any  other  subject. — With  such  evidence  men 
may  believe  with  an  undoubted  faith,  and  there  is  no 
more  need  of  a  miracle,  or  of  any  supernatural  agency 
to  produce  faith  in  Christ,  than  to  secure  faith  in  any 
thing  else  which  you  receive  on  the  strength  of  evi- 
dence." Mere  intellectual  faith,  then,  constitutes  a  man 
a  true  Christian,  if  we  may  believe  Mr.  W.  He  insists 


FAITH  NOT  NECESSARY  TO  FUTURE  HAPPINESS.      227 
But  one  kind  of  faith.  A  diligent  workman. 

upon  it,  (pp.  186-8,)  that  all  "  distinctions  between  va- 
rious kinds  of  faith"  are  "  a  mere  play  upon  words 
without  profit.  All  faith  is  one  and  indivisible  in  na- 
ture." "  Christian  faith — is,  in  its  nature,  simply  the 
assent  which  the  mind  gives  to  the  truth  of  these  things 
[respecting  Christ]  from  the  force  of  evidence,  and  will, 
in  each  case,  be  weak  or  strong,  in  proportion  as  the 
evidence  is  understood  and  appreciated."  He  then 
proceeds  to  show  the"  fallacy"  of  the  position,  "that  wo 
wan  can  be  saved  without  faith,  and  that  the  eternal 
destinies  of  the  world  are  suspended  upon  the  conditions 
of  faith  or  unbelief."  "  The  sentiment  which  teaches — 
that  men  are  to  be  saved  in  another  world,  because  they 
are  fortunate  enough  to  believe  it  so,  or  lost  because  they 
believe  it  not  so,  is  grossly  absurd  and  utterly  unphi- 
losophical."  And  yet,  if  there  is  any  certain  meaning 
in  language,  Jesus  Christ  held  and  taught,  and  commis- 
sioned his  apostles  to  teach  all  nations,  that  very  senti- 
ment. 

It  seems,  however,  to  be  but  a  small  matter  with 
these  men  to  ascertain  what  Christ  preached,  if  they 
can  only  know  how  Father  Ballou  believes  and  teach- 
es. If  he  says  it  must  be  so  and  so,  Mr.  Balfour  x  ts 
himself  to  work  with  Greek  and  Hebrew  characters, 
and  bye  and  bye,  it  is  found  that  all  the  laws  of  criti- 
cism require,  that  we  should  understand  even  those  pas- 
sages  that  seem  most  directly  opposed  to  such  a  view, 
just  as  Mr.  Ballou  has  said  it  must  be.  We  are,  there- 
fore, to  look  to  Mr.  Ballou  for  the  key-note  of  all  their 
strains. 


228  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Religion  needless  for  heaven.  Justification  by  faith. 

Hear  then  the  oracle ;  "  No  mistake  can  be  greater 
('  Exp.'  I.  28,)  than  the  supposition  that  the  Divine 
Being  is  induced  to  bestow  his  favor  upon  us,  because 
he  discovers  in  us  the  religion  which  he  approves." 
But  "  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God." 
The  religion  which  he  approves  is  faith.  Therefore  it 
is  the  greatest  of  mistakes  to  suppose  that  our  faith  has 
anything  to  do  with  our  procuring  the  favor  of  God. — 
Again,  (p.  178,)  he  says,  "  The  common  method  of  ur- 
ging the  necessity  of  being  religious,  or  of  having  reli- 
gion in  order  to  be  prepared  to  die  and  to  be  happy  in 
the  future  state, — we  are  apprehensive  exerts  an  influ- 
ence, which  they  themselves  would  deprecate,  were 
they  sensible  of  it."  It  matters  not,  then,  whether  a 
man  has  religion  or  not  in  this  world,  in  order  to  his  be- 
ing happy  in  the  future  state ! 

It  has  been  thought  heretofore,  that  no  doctrine  is 
more  clearly  taught  in  the  word  of  God  than  the  neces- 
sity of  faith  in  order  to  justification.  "  That  God 
might  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth 
in  Jesus,"  Christ  was  set  forth  a  propitiation.  "  There- 
fore being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God." 
"  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of 
the  law,  but  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we 
[Je\vs]  have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be 
justified  by  the  faith  of  Christ.  Even  as  Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness." "  Foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  hea- 
then through  faith."  "The  law  was  our  schoolmas- 
ter to  bring  us  unto  Christ  that  we  might  be  justified 


FAITH  NOT  NECESSARY  TO    FUTURE  HAPPINESS.       229 
Agi  i '.ml.  Justifying  faith di-fmed. 

by  faith"    Such  was  the  preaching  which  the  Romans 
;md  Galatians  were  accustomed  to  hear. 

But  a  greater  than  Paul  is  here.  A  prophet  has 
risen  up  in  our  day,  who  has  discovered  that  our  justi- 
fication does  not  depend  on  that  exercise  of  the  mind 
which  is  called  '  faith,'  or  believing  ;  but  that  it  is  al- 
ready secured,  whether  we  believe  or  not,  by  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  or  "  the  faith  in  Christ,"  as  the  whole 
system  of  Christian  doctrine  is  sometimes  called.  He 
treats  Paul  as  he  would  a  mere  simpleton.  Paul  has 
said  that  Abraham's  believing  was  counted  unto  him  for 
righteousness.  But  Ballou  says,  ('  Lect.  Sermons,'  pp. 
306-8,)  "  It  is  an  egregious  mistake  to  suppose  that 
Abraham's  believing  in  the  promise  of  God  is  the 
righteousness  of  faith  by  which  he  was  constituted  the 
heir  of  the  world."  Contrary  to  all  common  sense, 
he  makes  Paul  to  speak  of  the  faith  by  which  we  are 
justified,  as  the  same  thing  with  the  fact  of  the  resur- 
rection. "Paul  had  said,  referring  to  Abraham's  act  of 
believing,  "  Now  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone, 
that  it  was  imputed  to  him  ;  but  for  us  also  to  whom  it 
shall  be  imputed,  IF  WE  BELIEVE  on  him  that  raised  up 
Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  who  was  delivered  for 
our  offences,  and  raised  again  for  our  justification. — 
Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  &c."  Now  a  child 
must  be  blind  not  to  see  that  we  are  justified  "if  we 
believe  in  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead," 
and  that  therefore  it  is  said  that  Christ  was  raised 
again  for  our  justification,  because  his  resurrection  is 
20 


230  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT    IS. 

How  justified.  Justification  unconditional. 

the  crowning  proof  of  that  which  we  are  to  believe — 
of  that  which  believing  we  are  justified. 

But  Mr.  Ballou  will  have  it,  (p.  307,)  "  that  this 
faith  by  which  we  are  justified  is  not  our  act  of  believ- 
ing.— It  is  evident  that  the  inspired  apostle  makes  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  and  the  faith  by  which  we  are 
justified  the  same ;  by  which  it  is  evident,  that  by 
faith  he  no  more  meant  the  act  "of  believing,  than  he 
meant  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  for  our  justifica- 
tion was  the  act  of  our  believing."  Here  faith  and 
the  resurrection  are  the  same  thing.  But  in  the  very 
next  sentence  he  forgets  himself  and  says,  "  This  faith 
which  is  the  covenant  of  promise,,  the  apostle  distin- 
guishes most  clearly  from  the  act  of  believing."  And 
he  thinks  it  "  needful  to  be  thus  particular,"  in  order 
"  to  expose  the  common  error,  which  supposes  that  our 
act  of  believing  is  required  as  a  condition  of  our  jus- 
tification before  God.  This  error  has  so  confused  the 
minds  of  professors  of  Christianity,  that  they  know 
not  how  to  explain  their  own  thoughts.  They  be- 
lieve that  God  requires  our  act  of  believing  as  a  con- 
dition of  our  justification."  But  he  is  wiser  than  all 
who  have  gone  before  him !  He  is  not  so  foolish  as 
to  believe  such  an  absurdity!  To  be  sure,  Christ 
charged  the  apostles  to  admit  none  to  his  kingdom, 
unless  they  believed — exercised  faith  :  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be ,  damned."  But  what  is  that  to  this 
illustrious  founder  of  modern  Universalism  ? 

An  infidel  could  say  no  more  than  Mr.  Ballou  says, 


FAITH  NOT  NECESSARY  TO  FUTURE  HAPPINESS.       231 

An  unreasonable  notion.  Faith  of  devils. 

(p.  366 ;) — "  The  notion  that  this  doctrine  consists  of 
a  long  string  of  abstract  articles  of  faith,  which  have 
been  written  into  human  creeds,  the  belief  of  which 
is  proposed  in  the  gospel  as  a  condition  of  our  beirg 
made  eternally  happy  in  a  future  state,  is  so  perfectly 
destitute  of  reason,  and  so  foreign  from  the  nature  of 
events  which  take  place  in  the  system  of  causes  and 
effects,  that  it  is  by  no  means  entitled  to  any  share  of 
our  confidence."  Why  does  not  the  man  say  at  once, 
that  the  whole-Bible  is  entitled  to  our  confidence  no 
further  than  it  suits  us  to  believe  it  ?  For  surely,  in 
his  view,  it  is  a  very  small  matter  whether  a  man  be- 
lieves any  part  of  it  or  not. 

From  such  evidence  it  would  be  an  easy  matter  to 
show  that  devils  are  Christians  ;  for  "  the  devils  also 
believe  and  tremble."  "  And,  behold  !  they  cried  out 
saying,  What  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son 
of  God  ?"  "  I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One 
of  God."  The  answer  which  the  eunuch  gave  to  Phi- 
lip __«  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God," 
— was  not  more  explicit.  But  Philip  said — "  If  thou 
believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  This 
heart-work  is  all  that  is  wanting  to  make  the  devils 
Christians.  Shall  I  say  the  same  of  these  Universal- 
ists,  or  not?  Let  the  reader  determine. 

Universal ists,  it  is  well  known,  are  very  anxious  to 
obtain  converts  to  their  faith.  But  when  the  question 
is  asked  them,  "  Where  is  the  need  of  your  preaching 
and  urging  others  to  believe  as  you  do  ?" — instead  of 


232  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Use  of  preaching.  Only  for  this  life. 

declaring  that  those  who  believe  will,  in  that  case,  be 
happier  in  another  state  of  being,  they  uniformly  reply 
— "  for  the  enjoyment  to  be  derived  from  it  in  this  life." 
"  We  believe,"  says  one,  ('  Gospel  Anchor,'  II.  68,) 
"  Christianity  is  important,  all-important  to  the  reli- 
gious hopes,  duties,  consolations,  and  happiness  of 
mankind.  We  would  spend  and  be  spent  in  spread- 
ing a  knowledge  of  it  to  the  world.  Its  value  in  every 
point  of  view  is  inestimable — its  price  is  infinitely  above 
rubies.  But  we  do  not  believe  that  those  who  die 
without  a  knowledge  of  it  will  be  miserable  to  all  eter- 
nity— no  !  no  !"  It  is  good  enough  for  this  world,  but 
not  at  all  necessary  to  one's  happiness  in  another. 

In  answer  to  the  objection,  ( If  Universalism  be  true 
it  is  of  no  use  to  preach  it,'  another  remarks,  (p.  41,) — 
"  Whence  is  this  gross  mistake  ? — I  apprehend,  it 
comes  from  a  false  notion  of  the  nature  and  design  of 
Christianity. — Universalism  does  not  propose  to  save 
men  from  the  wrath  of  their  Maker  in  the  eternal 
world,  but  from  their  ignorance,  superstition,  and  sin, 
and  the  consequences  of  these  in  this  life. — Universal- 
ism  aims  to  do  men  good  in  this  world,  not  in  the  next. 
— It  seeks  man's  present  improvement  and  happiness ;  it 
pretends  not  to  know  futurity  any  further  than  God 
has  revealed  it ;  and  when  its  eye  looks  beyond  the  dark, 
impassable  gulf,  which  separates  time  from  eternity,  it 
sees  only  that  glorious  immortality  which  is  brought  to 
light  in  the  gospel." 

Thus  they  tacitly  admit  that  it  is  of  no  use  to  preach 


FAITH  NOT  NECESSARY  TO  FUTURE  HAPPINESS.        233 

Their  benevolence  partial.  No  pity  for  the  heathen. 

Universalism,  as  far  as  another  world  is  concerned. 
Whether  men  believe  as  they  do  or  not,  they  will  be 
none  the  less  happy  hereafter. 

But  if  this  be  the  true  reason,  why  is  not  their  bene- 
volence equal  to  their  faith — why  is  it  not  universal  ? 
Why  do  we  never  hear  of  Universalist  missionary  soci- 
eties ?  Why  are  Universalist  preachers  never  heard 
of,  except  where  orthodoxy  has  lifted  up  her  voice,  and 
sounded  an  alarm  in  the  ear  of  the  guilty  ?  If,  as  they 
say,  "  they  would  spend  and  be  spent  in  spreading  a 
knowledge  of  it  to  the  world,"  why  do  they  never  go 
among  the  heathen  ?  Have  they  no  pity  for  the  mise- 
rable Hindoo,  the  stupid  Chinese,  the  infatuated  Parsee, 
the  blood-thirsty  New  Zealander,  and  the  hunted  Afri- 
can ?  Is  not  the  condition  of  the  most  deluded  Chris- 
tian almost  infinitely  raised  above  even  the  best  of  those 
pagan  tribes  ?  And  how  can  they  hope  to  make  the 
world  believe  that  their  sole  aim,  in  abusing,  reviling, 
and  railing  at  us  Christians,  is  to  make  us  happier  in 
this  present  world,  when  they  never  stir  hand  or  foot 
to  bring  the  light  of  the  gospel  to  shine  on  "  the  dark 
places  of  the  earth,"  which  "  are  full  of  the  habitations 
of  cruelty  ?" — when  they  oppose,  with  all  their  might, 
all  our  efforts  to  send  the  Bible  to  "  all  the  world," 
and  to  "  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature." 

They  give  themselves  great  credit  for  their  zeal. 
"  Jill  know;9  says  O.  A.  Skinner,  (p.  180,)  "  that  UNI- 

VERSALISTS    HAVE     MUCH     OF     THE     SAME     ANXIETY   MANI- 
FESTED BY  THE  APOSTLES  ! ! !"     This  is  news  indeed ! 
20* 


234  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Apostolical  zeal.  Mere  words  prove  nothing. 

When  was  a  Universalist  minister  ever  known  to  weep 
over  his  hearers  because  they  would  not  believe  1 
When,  to  exclaim  with  one,  "  Oh  !  that  my  head  were 
waters,  and  mine  eyes  a  fountain  of  tears,  that  I  might 
weep  day  and  night  for  the  slain  of  the  daughter  of 
my  people  ?"  Who  among  them  all  could  ever  say — 
i  Remember,  that  by  the  space  of  three  years  I  ceased 
not  to  warn  every  one  night  and  day  with  tears  ?'  Not 
one.  The  principal  aim  of  nearly  all  their  sermons 
appears  to  be  to  cheer  up  their  hearers  with  the  notion, 
that  there  is  no  hell  for  the  wicked  after  death,  and 
that  all  will  go  to  heaven  at  last. 

But  hear  Mr.  Skinner  further.  "  How  can  it  be  other- 
wise when  they  see  that  the  happiness  of  their  friends, 
and  the  prosperity  of  their  country  depend  upon  the  at* 
tention  paid  to  religion  ? — W7hat  misery  is  to  be  com- 
pared with  that  arising  from  the  wickedness  of  our 
friends  ?  Is  it  strange,  then,  that  there  should  be  tears, 
and  prayers,  and  watchings,  and  trials,  in  laboring  to 
restore  a  sinner  1  -Surely  there  is  something  that  can 
fill  the  mind  with  anguish,  besides  the  fear  that  we,  or 
our  friends  shall  drop  into  endless  woe !"  But  why 
all  this  for  friends  only  ?  It  was  not  so  with  Christ, 
nor  with  the  apostles.  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  shared 
in  the  sympathies  of  Paul,  and  his  tears  were  shed 
mostly  for  poor  heathen. 

Let  us  have  something  more  than  words.  A  well- 
organized  and  well-conducted  system  of  missions  to  the 
heathen,  patronized  by  the  whole  sect,  would  do  more 


FAITH  NOT  NECESSARY  TO  FUTURE  HAPPINESS.        236 
True  sourer  of  their  zeal. 

to  convince  the  world  of  their  sincerity,  than  the  loud- 
est professions. 

"  No  wild  enthusiast  ever  yet  could  rest, 
Till  half  mankind  were  like  himself  possess'd. 
Fresh  confidence  the  speculatist  takes 
From  ev'ry  hair-brain'd  proselyte  he  makes; 
And  therefore  prints.     Himself  but  half  deceived, 
Till  olhrr*  have  the  toothing  tale  believ'd." 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE   NEW   BIRTH. 

The  New  Birth — Not  necessary  to  future  happiness — Regene- 
ration not  a  change  of  nature — Not  a  superhuman  work — 
No  change  but  that  of  the  Resurrection  needful  for  entrance 
to  Heaven — The  New  Birth  really  denied — Common  doc- 
trine ridiculed — Mysteriousness  of  Regeneration  denied — 
The  fact  of  Regeneration  easily  known — To  be  hereafter 
experienced  by  all — Regeneration  nothing  more  than  Re- 
formation, or  a  change  of  party — Experience  of  all  the 
saints  contradicted. 

11  And  is  the  soul  indeed  so  lost  ?  one  cries, 
Fallen  from  her  glory,  and  forbid  to  rise  7 
Torpid  and  dull  beneath  a  frozen  zone, 
Has  she  no  spark  that  may  bedeem'd  her  own? 
Grant  her  indebted  to  what  zealots  call 
Grace  undeserv'd,  yet  surely  not  for  all — 
Some  beams  of  rectitude  she  yet  displays, 
Some  love  of  virtue  and  some  pow'r  to  praise  ; 
Can  lift  herself  above  corporeal  things, 
And  soaring  on  her  own  unborrow'd  wings ; 
Possess  herself  of  all  that's  good  and  true, 
Assert  the  skies  and  vindicate  her  due." — COWPER. 

IN  a  former  chapter,  it  was  shown  that  Universalists 
maintain  the  native  purity  of  every  human  being.  They 
teach  that  man.  comes  into  the  world  as  free  from  taint 
as  the  spotless  snow.  He  forms  his  own  character  en- 


THE  NEW  BERTH.  237 

No  room  for  regeneration.  None  needed  here  for  a  future  Mate. 

tirely,  unaffected  by  the  fact  that  he  is  born  of  woman. 
If  he  sins,  (and  who,  that  knows  his  right  hand  from 
his  left,  does  not  ?)  his  sins  are  the  work  of  the  flesh  ; 
the  mind  never  of  its  own  accord  defiles  itself — never 
consents  to  sin.  It  is  the  flesh  that  is  to  blame. 

With  such  notions  of  man,  how  can  the  Universalist 
receive  the  common  doctrine  of  Regeneration,  or  the 
New  Birth  ?  In  such  a  system,  what  place  can  be 
found  for  what  is  called  a  change  of  heart?  The  heart, 
surely  needs  no  change,  if  neither  original!}',  nor  totally 
depraved.  All  that  is  needed  is,  for  the  mind  to  be  en- 
lightened, divested  of  prejudice  and  ignorance,  and 
then,  the  pathway  of  happiness  being  laid  open,  the 
man  will  enter  and  run  the  race  with  joy. 

Nor,  as  we  have  seen,  is  such  a  change  needed  in 
order  to  be  happy  hereafter,  if  this  life  be,  in  no  sense, 
a  state  of  probation  for  another.  In  that  case,  it  will 
profit  nothing  in  the  world  to  come,  to  have  been  born 
again,  or  regenerated  here.  Paul,  with  all  his  holiness 
of  heart,  his  untiring  zeal,  and  self-denying  labor  in 
the  service  of  his  Master,  will  occupy  a  seat  in  heaven 
by  the  side  of  the  traitor  Judas.  His  conversion,  his 
new  birth,  his  being  a  new  creature,  will  do  him  no 
good  there.  Ahab,  and  Judas,  and  Nero,  having  laid 
aside  their  corruptions  in  the  grave,  will  in  the  resur- 
rection rise  as  pure  and  glorious,  as  David,  Paul,  or 
John. 

The  reader  must  not,  therefore  be  surprised  to  find 
that  Universalists  affirm  that 


238  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Supernatural  agency  denied.  Their  views  of  the  new  birth. 

XX.    REGENERATION  is  MERELY  A  CHANGE  OF  PARTY. 

In  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  they,  of  course, 
deny  the  personality  and  divine  agency  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  commonly  received  by  the  orthodox.  Conse- 
quently, they  cannot  admit  a  doctrine,  which  attributes 
to  this  divine  agent,  as  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  a  renewing,  or  regenerating,  of  the  human  soul, 
mind,  or  spirit,  so  making  all  things  new.  From  all 
that  can  be  learned  by  means  of  their  writings,  preach- 
ing, and  discourse,  they  are  entire  strangers  to  any  such 
change  of  the  heart.  They  even  ridicule  those  for  it, 
who  profess  to  have  experienced  such  a  change.  Those 
revivals  of  religion,  too,  in,  and  by  means  of,  which 
so  many  profess  to  have  been  made  experimentally  ac- 
quainted with  this  great  change,  they  scoff  at,  as  alto- 
gether the  work  of  deluded  and  deceitful  men. 

It  is,  by  no  means,  intimated,  that  Universalists  deny 
in  words  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth.  This  would 
never  answer,  without  a  new  translation  and  an  emen- 
dation of  the  original  Scriptures.  Accordingly,  we  fiud 
Mr.  Le  Fevre  very  anxious  to  throw  off  such  an  impu- 
tation. "  It  has  been  erroneously  supposed,"  he  says, 
(<  Gospel  Anchor,'  I.  61,)  "that  the  advocates  of  Uni- 
versalism  do  not  believe  in  a  new  birth,  or  regenera- 
tion. This  is  a  very  gross  mistake ;  they  consider 
it  as  necessary  as  any  class  of  Christians;  but  their 
views  of  it  may  materially  differ  from  those  generally 
entertained"  "  Let  no  one  accuse  the  Universalists  of 
denying  a  change,  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth. 


THE  NEW  BIRTH.  239 


Not  a  radical  change.  Their  views  superficial. 

They  may  be  said  to  be  the  only  denomination  who 
contend  for  its  actual  necessity  and  unlimited  influence." 

But  what  is  the  character  of  that  regeneration,  in 
which  they  so  boastingly  believe  ?  Is  it  the  same  that 
is  ordinarily  meant  by  these  terms  1  No,  this  they  will 
not  say.  It  differs  "  materially"  from  what  is  "  gene- 
rally entertained."  They  hold,  that  in  order  for  a  man 
to  be  a  "  disciple  of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus,  and  ob- 
tain citizenship  in  his  kingdom"  here  on  the  earth,  he 
must  become  a  Universalist — so  full  of  love,  as  not  to 
believe  "  in  a  God  of  fury  and  wrath,"  and  not  to  find 
"  in  the  gospel  a  message  of  damnation."  Let  a  man 
embrace  their  sentiments,  and  show  much  love  to  his 
fellow-men,  and,  in  their  eyes,  he  is  regenerated. 

" This  use  of  the  term  regeneration"  says  Mr.  Le 
Fevre,  "  has  often  been  happily  and  appropriately  ap- 
plied to  nations,  with  a  view  of  conveying  a  similar  sen- 
timent. A  nation  that  has  been  sunk  in  bondage,  her 
liberties  in  the  hands  of  a  despot,  her  population  deba- 
sed and  slavish,  when,  in  her  might,  she  shall  rise  from 
her  degradation,  burst  the  fetters  of  tyranny,  throw  off 
the  yoke  of  oppression,  and  assert  her  unalienable  rights, 
that  nation  is  very  properly  said  to  be  regenerated. 
She  is  born  into  a  new  state  of  political  existence ;  she 
has  experienced  a  regenerating  power,  which  has  ele- 
vated her  to  a  new  rank  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth."  Similar,  he  would  have  us  to  believe,  is  the 
regeneration,  or  new  birth,  spoken  of  in  scripture. 

But,  superficial  as  is  the  change  here  admitted,  even 
that  is  required  only  as  a  condition  of  discipleship  on 


240  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Whnt  they  mean  by  a  change.  Miserable  trifling. 

earth.  Whatever  change  may  be  needed  in  order  to 
happiness  in  heaven,  man  has  no  agency  in  bringing  it 
about.  "  It  has  been  generally  taught,"  he  adds,  "  that 
unless  a  man  is  born  into  Christ's  kingdom  here  on  earth, 
he  cannot  be  received  into  his  eternal  kingdom  hereafter. 
It  is  farther  taught,  that  comparatively  few  in  the  world 
are  so  born.  We  are  aware  that  these  are  the  doc- 
trines of  men,  but  certainly  they  are  not  the  command- 
ments of  God. — We  must  confess,  that  it  appears  some- 
what preposterous  to  make  the  birth  apply  to  this 
world,  and  the  kingdom  in  which  the  new-born  crea- 
ture enters,  to  be  in  another  world."  In  short,  they 
believe, that  no  other  change  is  necessary  in  order  to 
enter  the  kingdom  of  endless  glory,  than  that  which 
will  be  effected  by  the  resurrection,  without  the  slight- 
est agency  or  responsibility  of  the  creature.  They 
say  with  the  apostle,  "  we  must  all  be  changed." 
"  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God, 
neither  doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption.  It  is  in 
view  of  this  obvious  truth,  that  they  teach  a  radical 
change  to  the  whole  human  race." 

What  perfect  trifling  is  this.  They  are  much  offend- 
ed if  we  accuse  them  of  denying  a  change,  (meaning, 
of  course,  a  change  of  heart,  in  this  life,)  and  they  re- 
ply— '  Oh !  we  believe  in  a  change  as  much  as  any  one 
does ;  for  "  we  shall  all  be  changed"  in  being  raised 
from  the  dust  of  death !' — We  ask,  Do  you  believe  in 
the  necessity  of  a  change  of  heart  in  this  world  in  order 
to  be  happy  in  another,  and  the  answer  is,  (  Oh  !  yes, 
we  believe  in  the  Resurrection ! !  P  Is  this  the  way  in 


THE    NEW    BIRTH.  241 


No  knowledge  of  a  supernatural  change.       Perversion  or  Solomon's  words. 

which  they  preach  ?     And  are  the  people  silly  enough 
to  content  themselves  with  such  guides  ? 

The  language  of  Mr.  Williamson  is  still  more  expli- 
cit. Remarking  ('  G.  Anchor,'  II.  253,)  on  what  is 
called  a  "  change  of  heart,"  he  says,  "  We  have  placed 
this  caption  at  the  head  of  this  article,  to  designate 
what  it  is  usually  supposed  to  mean,  viz. — the  radical 
change  of  the  \\hole  moral  nature  of  man,  brought 
about  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  amount- 
ing to  a  new  creation.  Whether  men  do  actually  get 
changed  in  this  manner,  or  not,  we  shall  not  attempt 
to  inquire.  We  only  observe  that  in  our  intercourse 
with  the  world,  we  have  seen  many  who  professed  to 
have  experienced  such  a  change,  but  we  were  never 
able  to  discover  it  in  their  lives,  or  conversation.  How- 
ever the  matter  may  stand  in  our  day,  one  thing  is  very 
evident,  that  is,  in  Solomon's  time  no  such  marvellous 
changes  occurred.  Solomon,  with  all  his  wisdom,  had 
never  seen  such  wonders  as  are  told  by  modern  Chris- 
tians. Hear  him  :  '  I  know  that  whatsoever  God  doeth 
it  shall  be  forever,  nothing  can  be  added  to  it,  nor  any 
thing  taken  from  it.'  Now  mm  it  will  be  ad- 

mitted that  the  creation  of  man,  in  the  first  instance, 
was  the  work  of  God.  Well,  was  it  done  forever  ? 
'  No,'  says  common  doctrine ;  '  he  must  meet  with  a 
total  change.'  Well,  can  you  add  any  thing  to  this 
work  of  God  ?  *  Yes,  we  can  add  a  new  heart'  Can 
you  take  any  thing  away  ?  '  Yes,  we  can  take  away 
the  old  one.'  Such  notions  poorly  harmonize  with  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon." 
21 


242  ITN1VERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Ezekiel's  views.  An  irrational  dogma. 

Thus,  in  terms  the  most  plain,  he  denies  both  the  ne- 
cessity and  possibility  of  that,  into  the  reality  of  which 
he  professed  not  to  inquire.  The  reader  is  desired  to 
bear  in  mind,  in  this  connection,  those  memorable 
words,  (Ezek.  xi.  19,)  "  And  I  will  put  a  new  spirit 
mthin  you,  and  I  will  take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their 
flesh,  and  will  give  them  an  heart  of  flesh;"  and, 
(xxxvi.  26,)  "  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a 
new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you,  and  I  will  take  away 
the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  put  my 
Spirit  within  you." 

If  any  still  doubt,  whether,  or  not,  these  innovators 
deny  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth,  as  it  is  commonly 
understood,  let  them  read  the  following,  from  the  pen 
of  Mr.  J.  Lewis.  He  makes  bold  to  say,  ('  Mag.  and 
Adv.'  III.  33,)  that  "the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth,  un- 
der the  form  in  which  it  is  generally  taught,  and  very 
generally  received  amongst  Christians,  is  doubtless  as 
clearly  explained,  and  as  well  understood,  as  any  irra-> 
tional,  unintelligible,  incomprehensible  dogma  can  be." 
"  Though  much  is  said  in  the  religious  world  about  rege- 
neration, and  being  born  again,  we  apprehend  that  the 
Scriptural  import  of  these  expressions  is  little  under- 
stood ;  and  that,  although  it  is  generally  agreed  that 
the  new  birth  is  indispensably  necessary,  few  people 
entertain  clear,  much  less  consistent,  views  respecting 
its  nature."  Which  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  with 
the  exception  of  the  few  indoctrinated  Universalists, 
Christians,  in  general,  know  nothing  at  all  about  it. 

Mr.  Lewis  then  proceeds  to  say,  "  that  to  be  born  of 


THE    NEW    BIRTH.  243 


No  mystery  about  it.  None  need  be  anxious  about  it. 

God,  or  to  be  the  children  of  God,  or,  in  literal  terms, 
to  be  like  God,  we  must  love  all  mankind,  even  our 
enemies,"  i.  e.  if  we  are  genuine  philanthropists,  we  are 
born  again,  or  regenerated.  He  also  states,  (p.  34,) 
that  "  the  new  birth,  according  to  the  Scriptural  repre- 
sentation of  it — is  the  enlivening  and  strengthening  of 
our  affections,  the  directing  of  them  towards  their  pro- 
per objects,  and  the  extension  of  the  same  to  all  our 
brethren  of  the  human  family.  It  consists,  therefore,  in 
universal  love  and  good  will. — It  is  not  any  thing  mys- 
terious, in  the  common  acceptation  of  that  terra ;  not 
an  unknowable,  indescribable  something,  absolutely 
impenetrable  by  the  human  understanding ;  but  a  pro- 
cess just  as  susceptible  of  being  understood  as  any  opera- 
tion of  the  mind  whatever"  And  all  this,  in  the  face 
of  that  declaration  of  our  Savior,  (John  iii.  8,)  "  The 
wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  nearest  the 
sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and 
whither  it  goeth ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit." 

We  are  also  told  by  Mr.  Lewis,  that  "  the  new  birth 
is  not  an  operation  about  which  we  need  to  harbor 
anxious  doubts,  whether  we  are  its  subjects.  A  person 
may  as  truly  know,  and  can  with  as  much  ease  and 
certainty  determine,  whether  he  has  experienced  the 
new  birth,  as  he  can,  whether  he  is  honest,  or  indus- 
trious, or  virtuous  in  any  other  respect  Wouldst  thou 
know  whether  thou  art  born  of  God  ?  Ask  thy  own  con- 
science the  serious  question — '  Do  I  love  my  fellow- 
creatures  V  The  answer  thou  receivest  will  decide  re- 
specting thy  spiritual  condition" 


244  UNIVERSALTSM  AS  IT  IS. 

All  to  be  changed  at  last.  Ignorance  of  a  change  of  heart. 

But  what  if  the  individual  finds  that  he  is  not  born 
again  ?  Will  that  affect  his  condition  hereafter  1  Not 
at  all  in  the  estimation  of  Mr.  Lewis  and  his  brethren. 
"  It  is  a  doctrine  commonly  taught  at  the  present  day," 
he  adds,  "  that  none  will  be  happy  in  the  future  state, 
but  those  who  partake  of  the  new  birth  in  this.  Ac- 
cording to  such  a  sentiment,  the  purpose  for  which  our 
Creator  bestows  the  new  birth,  is  to  constitute  its  sub- 
jects the  exclusive  heirs  of  salvation.  But  the  apostle 
James  gives,  we  think,  a  different  account  respecting 
the  design  of  God  in  this  matter. — The  whole  of  our 
race,  are,  at  length,  to  become  characteristically  the 
children  of  God,"  or  partakers  of  a  new  birth,  not  in- 
deed here,  but  hereafter,  in  another  state  of  being  ; — a 
change  as  necessary  for  those,  whom  they  believe  to  be 
born  again  in  this  life,  as  for  those,  who  have  never 
"  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost." 

How  perfectly  evident  is  it,  from  their  own  showing, 
that  neither  Mr.  Le  Fevre  nor  Mr.  "Williamson,  nor 
Mr.  Lewis,  have  ever  experienced  that  which  Chris- 
tians are  accustomed  to  call  a  change  of  heart!  In 
our  sense  of  the  phrase,  they  are  unregenerate  men,  as 
are  all  their  brethren  who  agree  with  them  in  the 
views  above  expressed.  And  if  unregenerate,  how  to- 
tally unfitted  are  they  to  be  teachers  of  the  people,  in 
things  pertaining  to  God  !  The  poorest  Christian 
among  us,  who  can  barely  say — "  One  thing  I  know, 
that  whereas  I  was  blind,  now  I  see," — knows  more 
about  it,  from  sweet  experience,  than  even  their  '  Gen- 
eral Convention.9 


THE  NEW  BIRTH.  245 


Kiiuwlfd<r«;  is  regeneration.  II  .urn  not  dependent  on  the  new  birth. 

Another  writer  in  the  same  volume,  Mr.  Hammond, 
simplifies  the  matter  still  more.  "  To  be  born  again," 
he  assures  us,  (p.  370,)  "  could  mean  nothing  less  than 
coming  forth  to  a  knowledge,  or  a  belief,  in  the  doc- 
trine of  life  and  immortality,  through  the  medium  of 
the  Savior  of  the  world."  "  In  all  this,  (p.  371,)  we 
see  nothing  mysterious  or  unaccountable ;  but  we  rea- 
dily perceive  a  cause  for  this  change  of  opinion,  conse- 
quently of  affection,  which,  in  my  humble  opinion,  con- 
stitutes a  regeneration  or  new  birth.  Mankind  must 
know  God  before  they  can  love  him.  To  arrive  at  a 
knowledge  of  truth  is  to  be  born  to  it.  Thus  the  pro- 
priety of  our  text — Except  a  man  be  born  to  a  know- 
ledge of  the  everlasting  Gospel,  how  can  he  see  the 
kingdom  of  God  ?"  Let  any  one,  then,  be  made  ac- 
(inaintcd  with  the  gospel,  and  he  is  born  again  ! 

The  *  Plain  Guide'  tells  us,  (p.  158,)  that  while  some 
believe  that  the  New  Birth  is  "  a  total  change  of  na- 
ture," "  others"  (referring  to  Universalists)  "  believe  it 
a  change  of  principles,  motives  and  habits."  By  which 
he  evidently  means  nothing  more  than  such  a  reforma- 
tion as  takes  place  in  the  case  of  a  reclaimed  drunkard, 
robber,  or  cut-throat ;  such  as  we  often  see  in  the  case 
of  many,  who,  from  leading  a  dissipated  life,  have  be- 
come very  moral  and  strict  in  their  deportment,  but 
without  any  experience  of  what  is  called  a  change  of 
heart  He  further  maintains  that  the  New  Birth,  "  is 
necessary  to  make  us  happy  here,  and  fit  us  for  life's 
duties  and  enjoyments ;  and  that  our  final  condition  is 
in  no  way  dependent  on  our  being  born  again  here." 
21* 


246  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Humility  is  regeneration.  Divine  influence  denied. 

When  our  Savior  said  to  his  disciples, — "  Except  ye 
be  converted,"  &c.,  the  <  Plain  Guide'  tells  us,  (p.  109,) 
that  he  simply  meant, — "  except  ye  curb  this  ambi- 
tion, and  cultivate  the  meek,  lovely  spirit  of  a  little 
child,  ye  cannot  be  my  disciples,  nor  subjects  of  my 
moral  reign."  Not  a  word  here  of  their  turning  to 
God.  Mr.  Skinner,  on  the  same  text  says,  (p.  311,) 
"  conversion  consisted  in  becoming  humble. — When  a 
proud  man  becomes  humble  and  feels  his  dependence,, 
he  is  converted."  The  same  writer  tells  us,  that  "  the 
difference  between  the  penitent  and  impenitent  is  not  in 
their  natures,  but  in  their  principles  and  motives." 
This  he  advances  in  opposition  to  those  by  whom — 
"  repentance  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  a  total 
change  of  our  nature,"  and  by  whom  it  is  thought, 
"  that  before  it  takes  place,  we  are  totally  corrupt." 
He  avers  (p.  310,)  "  that  man  has  naturally  good 
powers  which  are  capable  of  being  restored  to  their 
proper  use. — Hence  repentance  is  not  a  total  change ; 
neither  is  it  a  change  of  nature." 

That  Mr.  Skinner  and  his  brethren  do  not  mean  by 
their  '  conversions,'  any  thing  more  than  a  mere  change 
of  sentiments,  leading  to  the  adoption  of  new  princi- 
ples, &c.,  is  obvious  from  what  follows.  "  Can  we 
suppose, — "he  asks,  (p.  313,)  "  in  the  work  of  conver- 
sion that  there  is  any  supernatural  influence  exerted  ?" 
He  then  refers  to  several  texts,  and  says, — "  Now  all 
these  passages  contradict  the  idea  of  a  supernatural  in- 
fluence." He  then  adds.  (p.  314,) — "  THUS  WE  ARE 

CONVERTED  IN  THE  SAME  WAY  WE  ARE  REDEEMED  FROM 


THE  NEW  BIRTft.  247 


"A  mere  elmnge  of  sentiment.  Conversion  is  reformation. 

ANY    ERROR    IN   SCIENCE,  OR  GOVERNMENT  !"        That  is,  in 

plain  words, — A  man  becomes  a  Christian,  just  as  a 
child,  who  has  always  supposed  that  the  sun  goes 
round  the  earth,  becomes  a  convert  to  the  Copernican 
or  true,  solar  system ;  or  just  as  a  federalist  becomes  a 
democrat !  Thus,  too,  he  says,  (p.  219,)  "  To  consti- 
tute man  a  true  Christian,  it  is  only  requisite  that  his 
higher  powers  should  be  properly  developed  and  culti- 
vated." 

What  perfect  ignorance  of  any  thing  like  a  spiritual 
change  is  manifested  in  the  following  language  of  Mr. 
Grosh !  Referring  to  John  iii.  1 — 13,  he  remarks, 
('  Mag.  and  Adv.'  III.  268,)— "  The  birth  by  the  Spirit 
named  by  Jesus,  in  contradistinction  to  being  born  of  the 
earth,  earthy,  probably  refers  to  the  earthly  hopes  en- 
tertained by  the  Jews  respecting  the  Messiah — that  they 
should  not  look  for  an  earthly,  but  a  spiritual  kingdom 
— they  must  be  born  not  merely  of  the  water,  but  of  the 
spirit."  Thus  Regeneration  is  made  to  consist  in  a 
mere  change  of  views,  respecting  the  nature  of  Christ's 
kingdom  on  the  earth  ! 

"  What  is  conversion?"  says  another,  ('  Univ.  Union,' 
IV.  235.) — "  It  is  reformation.  It  requires  no  mira- 
culous power  to  bring  it  about,  no  supt  r-hmnan  effort, 
but  simply,  a  new  course  of  faith  or  practice,  as  the 
case  may  be. — The  idea  that  regeneration  is  a  myste- 
rious work,  and  that  it  is  wrought  on  certain  conditions 
by  the  mighty  power  of  God,  who  interferes  especially 
in  behalf  of  the  penitent  sinner,  is  an  error  which  has 
done  an  immense  deal  of  injury  to  the  cause  of  rational 


248  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Their  arrogance.  Experience  of  thousands. 

Christianity.  Let  it  suffice,  Christian  reader !  if  (  you 
do  justly,  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  with  your 
God.'— <  What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat  1  saith  the 
Lord.' " 

It  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  strange  that  these  men 
should  thus  speak.  They  cannot  go  beyond  their  own 
experience.  They  have  no  knowledge  of  any  other 
change  than  what  they  have  described.  Were  they 
honestly  to  confess  this  to  their  admirers,  it  would  be 
well.  But  when  they  go  beyond  this,  and  declare 
that  there  neither  is,  has  been,  nor  can  be,  in  this  world, 
any  other,  their  arrogance  is  unpardonable.  Thou- 
sands and  tens  of  thousands,  and  thousands  of  thousands 
rise  up  and  exclaim — ;*  We  know  better  ;'  we  have  ex- 
perienced vastly  more  than  is  "  dreamt  of  in  your  phi- 
losophy." The  very  thing  that  you  deny  and  ridicule 
we  know,  by  our  happy  experience,  to  be  a  positive 
fact !  And  so  an  innumerable  cloud  of  witnesses,  of 
saints  in  all  ages,  stand  ready  to  testify  to  the  same  fact, 
The  learned,  the  wise,  and  the  good, in  every  age,  have 
with  one  voice  declared  that — '  it  is  even  so.  We 
know  it,  we  feel  it.5  And  yet  these  upstarts  in  theolo- 
gy, merely  because  they  themselves  are  unregenerate, 
in  the  ordinary  sense,  are  determined  that  all  the  world 
beside  shall  be  as  they  are.  :  Are  we,  are  all  God's 
people,  then,  deluded  1  Is  there  no  reality  in  that  pro- 
fessed change,  for  which  our  thanks  are  daily  poured 
out  to  the  Giver  of  all  good  ?  You  may  sooner  con- 
vince us  that  matter  itself  has  no  existence,  save  in  the 
human  fancy, — that  we  ourselves  never  had  an  exist- 
ence on  th*  ^arth. 


THE   NEW   BIRTH.  249 


Superior  information.  Throwing  off  the  mask. 

Yet  these  men  pretend  to  know  more  about  the  mat- 
ter than  all  who  have  gone  before  them !  Are  they, 
with  their  confessed  inexperience  of  such  a  change, 
more  worthy  to  be  believed  than  those  who  have  ex- 
perienced it  and  therefore  speak  ?  It  is  true,  indeed, 
that "  charity  believeth  all  things ;"  but  he  must  have 
more  charity,  and  less  love  for  the  truth,  than  Paul  or 
John  had,  who  can  believe  that  such  expounders — nay, 
such  "  exploders" — of  the  word  of  God,  are  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles,  or  the  true  disciples  of  Christ. 
Too  long  have  they  deceived  the  people  with  their  vain 
pretensions.  Let  them  throw  off  the  mask,  and  appear 
in  their  true  character. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

THE    RESURRECTION-STATE. 

Resurrection — Time  of  it  indefinite— Its  nature — Resurrection 
of  the  whole  man — At  death  man  annihilated — Man  and 
beast  perish  alike — Resurrection  is  a  new  creation— Resur- 
rection denied — The  same  body  not  raised  again — All  equal 
in  the  Resurrection. 

"  Is  that,  all  nature  starts  at,  thy  desire  ? 
Art  such  a  clod  to  wish  thyself  all  clay? 
Nature's  first  wish  is  endless  happiness ; 
Annihilation  is  an  after-thought, 
A  monstrous  wish,  unborn  till  virtue  dies." — YOUNG. 

HAVING  disposed  of  man  during  his  mortal  life,  and 
•seen  that  he  has  no  concern  with  another,  that  his 
whole  existence  is  bounded  by  the  grave,  except  as,  at 
some  period  far  distant,  God  shall  be  pleased  to  renew 
that  existence,  let  us  extend  our  view  forward  to  the 
end  of  time,  and  learn  what  Universalism  teaches  in 
regard  to  the  resurrection.  However  much  they  may 
differ  as  to  the  time  when  this  event  may  take  place, 
they  agree  that 

XXI.  ALL  MANKIND  WILL  BE  EQUAL  IN  THE  RESURRECTION. 

That  they  have  not  settled  the  question  as  to  the 


THE  RESURRECTION-STATE.  251 

Strange  ignorance.  What  shall  be  rain*  d  ? 

time  when  the  resurrection  will  take  place,  appears 
from  the  following  statement.  "  Universalism  in- 
volves," says  Mr.  Cobb,  (<  Expos.'  III.  31,)  "the 
doctrine  of  a  resurrection  of  the  human  race  from  the 
state  of  death  into  a  state  immortal,  where  they  shall 
all  at  length  know,  and  love,  and  enjoy  God.  But 
whether  the  resurrection  instantly  succeeds  the  death  of 
the  body,  or  whether  it  is  a  progressive  work  in  the 
hands  of  God,  performed  upon  different  individuals  at 
different  times,  as  he  shall  please  to  raise  them,  or 
whether  it  is  to  take  place  with  all  simultaneously,  at 
some  future  time,  Universalism,  as  such,  does  not  de- 
cide. Different  individuals  have  their  different  opinions 
on  this  question."  What  can  the  man  mean  ?  Uni- 
versalism, he  tells  us,  does  not  decide  whether  the  re- 
surrection of  the  dead  "  instantly  succeeds  the  death  of 
the  body,  or  not !"  Let  him  go  and  ask  the  charnel- 
house,  where  the  bodies  of  the  generations  past  have 
slept  for  ages,  and  never  more  assert  so  foolish  a  thing. 
Universalism  must  be  the  very  quintessence  of  scepti- 
cism, if  it  cannot  decide  a  question  so  simple. 

But  it  is  proper  to  consider  what  it  is  that  shall  be 
raised  in  that  day.  What  kind  of  a  resurrection  do 
the  Christian  scriptures  reveal  ?  Plainly  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body  alone.  "  With  what  body  do  they  [the 
dead]  come  ?  It  is  sown  a  natural  body  ;  it  is  raised 
a  spiritual^  body."  It  is  called  "  the  redemption  of  the 
body."  The  change  that  is  to  take  place  at  the  resur- 
rection, is  a  change  of  the  body :  "  Wlio  shall  change 
our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his 


252  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Body  alone  dies.  Annihilation. 

glorious  body."  At  the  time  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  it  is  said  that  "  many  bodies  of  the  saints  arose." 
Now,  '  body'  is,  in  all  these  and  similar  passages, 
spoken  of  in  distinction  from  soul  or  spirit.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  show  that  Paul  did  not.  believe  in  the 
separate  conscious  existence  of  the  soul,  when  the 
body  should  be  dissolving  in  dust.  "  Knowing,"  he 
says,  "  that  whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are 
absent  from  the  Lord  ;  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent 
from  the  body,  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord."  It 
is  the  body,  and  not  the  soul,  that  dies  and  is  to  be 
raised  up  at  the  last  day.  It  is  the  body  alone  that  is 
then  to  undergo  this  wonderful  change.  The  soul  re- 
tains its  conscious  existence  through  the  intermediate 
state,  and  when  restored  to  the  body  after  the  latter 
has  undergone  this  great  change,  the  identity  of  the 
man  will  be  preserved  most  perfectly. 

But  this  is  not  the  resurrection  in  which  our  Univer- 
salists  believe.  Theirs  is  a  resurrection  of  the  whole 
man.  That  which  we  call  soul,  they  maintain  dies 
with  the  body — returns  to  dust,  for  it  is  matter  also. 
At  death  man  is  so  far  annihilated,  as  to  be  deprived 
of  all  conscious  existence;  to  crumble,  the  whole  of 
him,  to  dust,  so  that  he  never  would  exist  again  but 
for  the  resurrection.  Universalists  not  only  "  wish 
themselves  all  clay,"  but  actually  profess  to  believe 
that  they  are  such,  and  only  such.  They  who  died 
before  the  flood,  and  they  who  have  since  followed 
them,  have  perished.  They  are  as  much  out  of  exist- 
ence— Moses,  David,  and  Paul — as  the  brutes  that  perish. 


THE  RESURRECTION-STATE.  253 

No  separate  existence  of  tht  bpirit. 

Their  life  was  nothing  but  breath,  which  God  takes 
back  at  death ;  and  this  they  say  is  the  spirit  which 
"  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it." 

On  this  point,  hear  what  Mr.  Balfour  teaches : 
"  What,  say  some,  («  Three  Essays,"  p.  36,)  is  there 
no  difference  between  men  and  beasts?  I  answer, 
yes ;  but  man's  pre-eminence  consists  in  his  superior 
powers  of  mind,  and  in  his  being  raised  again  from  the 
dead  incorruptible  and  glorious.  The  beasts  totally 
perish,  and  so  would  man,  if  Jesus  Christ  had  not  risen 
from  the  dead.  If  it  is  contended  that  man  exists  after 
death,  because  he  has  a  spirit,  it  ought  also  to  be  con- 
tended, that  beasts  live  after  death,  for  '  they  have  all 
one  breath  or  spirit.'  '  And  this  is  the  same  as  to  say 
that  Balaam  has  now  no  more  existence  than  the  ani- 
mal on  which  he  rode,  by  whom  he  was  rebuked.  All 
mankind  who  have  deceased,  are  as  truly  annihilated 
as  the  beasts  that  have  perished.  As  to  what  will  be 
hereafter,  we  shall  see  presently. 

Commenting  on  the  text,  '  the  spirit  shall  return 
unto  God  who  gave  it,'  he  says,  (p.  37,)  "  We  have 
no  more  reason  to  conclude  from  this  text,  that  the 
spirit  will  exist  distinct  from  God  after  death,  than  that 
the  body  will  t-xi>t  distinct  from  the  ground  after  it 
returns  to  the  dust.  And  we  may  with  equal  truth  be- 
lieve in  pre-existent  spirits,  as  in  disembodied  spirits. 
In  short,  we  may  as  well  assert  the  pre-existence  of 
bodies  and  spirits  before  God  created  man,  as  assert  the 
separate  existence  of  either  after  death.  Both  return 
to  their  original  condition. — But  we  have  seen,  that 
22 


254  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  whole  man  dies  at  death.  Personal  identity. 

beasts  have  the  same  breath  or  spirit.  Why  not  affirm, 
also,  that  their  spirits  shall  be  happy  or  miserable  in  a 
disembodied  state  ?" 

Thus  they  maintain  that  man  and  beast  perish  alike 
at  and  after  death.  Man  is  as  much  annihilated  as 
matter  can  be,  and  nothing  remains  of  him  after  death 
but  the  original  elements  of  which  he  was  created. 
And  these  soon  return  to  their  unformed  and  chaotic 
state  again. 

Now,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  Universalism,  that  this 
whole  man,  body  and  spirit,  shall  be  raised  again  at 
the  resurrection ; — that  what  shall  then  be  raised  will 
be  vastly  different  from  what  died  ; — that  there  will 
then  be  an  entire  new  state  and  constitution  of  things 
— that  the  minds  of  what  shall  then  be  constituted  will 
not  be  at  all  affected,  as,  at  least,  to  their  moral  cha- 
racter, by  what  these  particles  of  matter  thought,  and 
felt,  and  did,  in  another  state ;  and  that  they  will  then 
be  so  constituted  as  to  be  not  at  all  exposed  to  sin. 

But  is  it  proper  to  call  this  a  resurrection  of  the 
dead  ? — a  resurrection  of  our  identical  selves  ?  Where- 
in consists  that  identity  ?  Not  in  the  sameness  of 
either  mental  or  moral  character:  for  no  informed 
Universalist  pretends  that  even  the  best  of  men  will 
have  the  same  moral  character  there  that  they  have 
here.  They  must  all  be  changed.  And  as  to  the  men- 
tal character,  they  either  pretend  not  to  know  what  it 
will  be,  or  that  it  will  differ  essentially  from  what  it 
was  here.  Now,  how  shall  the  beings  who  shall  then 
be  brought  into  existence  know  that  they  are  the  same 


THE  RESURRECTION-STATE.  256 

A  new  creation.  No  salvation  at  all. 

who  once  lived  on  earth, — when  they  have  no  com- 
mon basis  of  moral  responsibility,  no  common  con- 
sciousness, and,  for  aught  that  appears,  no  memory  in 
common  ?  Wherein  will  this  transaction  differ  from  a 
new  creation  ?  \Vhy  is  it  not  as  really  so  as  was  the 
creation  of  Adam  from  the  dust  of  the  earth  ?  The 
beings  that  will  then  exist  will  be  created  of  the  same 
material,  and  until  God  breathes  into  them  the  breath 
of  life,  as  he  did  in  the  case  of  Adam,  they  will  con- 
tinue inanimate. 

How,  then,  can  we  avoid  the  conclusion,  if  these 
things  are  so,  that  we  who  die  do  actually  perish — 
are  annihilated ;  and  that  instead  of  being  all  of  us 
taken  to  heaven  at  the  resurrection,  other  beings, 
other  distinct  existences,  will  then  be  created,  and  enter 
heaven  in  onr  stead.  In  this  case,  the  UNIVERSAL  SAL- 
VATION, of  which  these  writers  boast,  and  in  which  they 
glory  as  taught  only  by  them,  is  NO  SALVATION  AT  ALL. 
Instead  of  saving  all  or  any,  they  destroy,  annihilate 
the  whole,  and  create  new  beings  in  our  stead.  The 
heaven,  therefore,  of  which  they  preach,  will  be  enjoy- 
ed, not  by  us,  or  any  of  Adam's  mortal  race,  but  by 
another  and  an  entirely  distinct  race  of  new-created 
beings,  whose  characters  will  depend,  not  even  in  the 
slightest  degree,  on  what  ours  were  in  this  world. 

This  system,  then,  teaches,  as  fully  as  ever  the  Sad- 
ducees  taught  it.  that  THKKE  WILL  BE  NO  RESURRECTION. 
This  consequence  of  their  system  some  of  them  per- 
ceive, and  are  honest  enough  to  avow. 

Take  an   example  from  the  ('  Universalist  Union,' 


256  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

No  resurrection.  An  Inquiry. 

IV.  234,) — "For  several  centuries  past, a  large  portion 
of  the  Christian  world  has  entertained  the  opinion  that 
the  bodies  of  men  are  to  be  raised  ;  that  in  the  consum- 
mation of  all  things,  the  matter  composing  the  physical 
body  at  death,  or  the  clay  the  spirit  tenanted  here,  will 
then  be  moulded  into  its  original  form,  and  animated  by 
the  same  spirit.  The  learned,  with  most  other  Chris- 
tians, have  lived  and  died  in  the  belief  of  this  doctrine. 
Now,  without  casting  a  single  reflection  as  to  their  sin- 
cerity, the  opinion  is  liable  to  many  and  serious  objec- 
tions.— If  we  admit  this  doctrine  we  must  give  up  one 
of  the  soundest  principles  of  physiological  inquiry." 

He  then  proceeds  to  state,  that  our  bodies  here  are 
continually  undergoing  changes,  and  taking  parts,  as  it 
were,  of  what  were  formerly  numerous  other  bodies ; 
then  makes  the  supposition,  of  the  present  thousand 
millions  on  earth,  "  that  in  the  resurrection  they  are  to 
possess  the  identical  matter  that  this  moment  forms  their 
bodies.  Now,  then,"  he  asks,  "  as  it  cannot  be  denied  in 
strict  truth,  that  much  of  this  matter  formed  antecedent 
bodies,  or  bodies  in  every  generation  preceding  this, 
what  is  to  be  done  ?  Shall  thousands  of  spirits  be  de- 
prived of  their  bodies  to  supply  the  present  generation  ? 
Can  this  objection  be  in  any  way  obviated  ?  Is  there 
not  a  very  great  inconsistency  in  this  doctrine  1  And 
yet  of  what  practical  use  can  we  make  it  ?  What  care 
I,  whether  I  am  to  possess  the  same  body  I  now  have, 
providing  another  be  given  me  as  good,  or  even  better  ? 
No,  if  I  can  have  a  better,  I  will  most  gladly  give  up 
the  one  I  now  have." 


TtfE  RESURRECTION-STATE.  257 

Doctrine  called  absurd  Resurrection  all  their  hope. 

Having  indulged  in  some  further  calculations,  he 
adds — "  These  speculations  may  be  considered  foolish, 
but  no  more  so  than  the  doctrine  is  absurd. — The  ques- 
tion is,  do  or  do  not  the  Scriptures  warrant  the  opinion 
that  the  bodies  of  men  are  to  be  raised  ?  /  think  they 
do  not. — I  understand  that  the  heavenly  body  is  entirely 
distinct  from  earthly  matter,  flesh  and  blood." 

It  is  not  affirmed  that  the  views  now  advanced  have 
become  general,  or  rather  that  they  are  generally 
avowed.  But  that  they  will  be  adopted  by  the  sect  I 
have  no  manner  of  doubt.  They  may  call  it  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  but  what  claim  it  has  to  such  a  cogno- 
men I  am  not  able  to  see. 

But  let  this  pass.  The  resurrection-state,  as  they  call 
future  existence,  demands  our  attention.  To  this  they 
look  forward  as  all  their  hope.  This  it  is  that  consti- 
tutes salvation.  Universalists  expect  to  be  saved  from 
death  and  to  obtain  endless  happiness,  not  by  reason  of 
what  Christ  did  for  them  on  the  earth  by  suffering  for 
sinners,  but  by,  what  God  will  do,  by  the  means  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  in  raising  all  men  from  the  dead  to  a  life  of 
endless  bliss. 

"Many  good  people,"  says  Mr.  Balfour,  (< Three 
Essays,'  p.  186,)  "  affirm  with  great  confidence,  that 
unless  men  are  sons  of  God  in  this  world  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus,  they  must  be  miserable  forever.  Observe 
here,  that  our  Lord  says  nothing  like  this,  but  affirms — 
'  they  are  the  children  of  God — being  the  children  of  the 
resurrection.'  If  they  are  raised  from  the  dead,  by  him, 
they  are  his  children.  They  are  then  begotten  from  the 
22* 


258  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

No  distinctions  in  the  future  state.  How  to  become  children  of  God. 

dead  to  an  immortal,  incorruptible  life,  which  their  be- 
lieving here  could  neither  procure  nor  prevent."  They 
are  his  children  then  in  an  entire  new  state  and  constitu- 
tion of  things."  Thus  the  Resurrection,  not  a  life  of 
faith  and  holiness  on  earth,  fits  men  completely,  accord- 
ing to  this  doctrine,  to  dwell  for  ever  in  heaven. 

That,  in  the  future  state,  all  the  distinctions  of  moral 
character,  which  separated  men  here  on  the  earth,  will 
be  entirely  unknown,  they  plainly  declare.  Mr.  Whit- 
temore  says,— ('  Plain  Guide,'  pp.  263,  '4,)  "  that  the 
sacred  writers  contemplated  mankind  as  divided  into 
two  distinct  classes,  is  not  correct. — The  same  man  may 
be  righteous  at  one  time  and  wicked  at  another. — This 
is  the  only  sense  in  which  the  righteous  and  wicked  are 
mentioned  in  the  Bible. — The  Bible  does  not  support 
the  doctrine  of  distinctions  among  mankind  ;  either  in 
the  grave  or  beyond  it."  And  having  quoted  a  few 
texts,  he  adds,  "  Could  any  careful  person  gather  from 
this  language  the  notion  that  there  will  be  two  classes 
of  mankind,  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  after  the  re- 
surrection ?  It  is  in  vain  to  pretend  it." 

Mr.  Skinner,  having  shown  that  all  will  be  raised 
from  the  dead,  says  of  all  those  raised — "  It  is  this  that 
makes  us  children  of  God ;  children  in  the  highest  and 
most  endearing  sense. — The  resurrection  introduces  us 
into  the  kingdom  of  endless  blessedness. — Every  one 
that  is  raised,  is  raised  into  the  kingdom  of  immortal 
glory. — We  shall  all  be  equal  in  the  resurrection  ; — all 
alike,  all  equally  honorable,  glorious  and  happy."  He 


THE   RESURRECTION-STATE.  259 

All  equal  in  the  resurrection.  Pcwitivenesr 

does  not  believe  that  there  "  one  star  differeth  from 
another  star  in  glory."  («  Un.  111.'  pp.  288,  '9.) 

As  to  the  resurrection,  Mr.  Williamson  knows  ('  Ex- 
position/ p.  127,)  that  "  this  is  the  sum  of  the  matter  ; 
— When  a  man  dies,  no  matter  who  he  may  be,  it  is  for 
God  to  say  whether  he  shall  live  again  ;  and,  having 
decided  that  he  will  raise  him  from  the  dead,  it  is  for 
God,  and  God  alone,  to  say  what  shall  be  his  condition ; 
and  man  has,  in  justice,  no  right  to  a  voice  in  that  mat- 
ter at  all."  And  again  he  concludes,  (p.  139,)  "  Here 
I  rest  upon  this  point ;  if  there  is  truth  in  the  testimony 
of  Paul,  or  in  the  words  of  th«3  Savior,  then  it  is  settled, 
that  the  state  of  man,  in  the  resurrection,  is  one  of  im- 
mortality, incorruption,  glory,  and  power,  such  as  is 
enjoyed  by  the  angels  of  God  which  are  in  heaven ; 
nor  is  there  the  least  possible  authority  for  saying  that 
man  shall  be  raised  in  two  classes,  one  like  the  angels 
of  God  in  heaven,  and  the  other  like  the  devils  that 
are  in  hell."  "  Enjoyed  by  the  angels  of  God  in  hea- 
ven !"  Will  Mr.  W.  explain  ?  What  does  he  mean 
by  angels,  when  he  does  not  believe  in  such  spiritual 
beings,  fallen  or  unfallen  1 

When  the  Savior  says,  "  all  that  are  in  the  graves 
shall  come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the 
resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done  evil  unto 
the  resurrection  of  damnation,"  he  does  not  furnish  us 
with  the  least  possible  authority  to  believe  that  man- 
kind will  be  raised  in  two  classes  !  "  Not  the  least  pos- 
sible authority,"  when  nearly  every  scholar  and  com- 
mentator, as  well  as  the  unlettered,  have  regarded  it 


260  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

Babblers  to  be  shunned. 

as  the  highest  possible  authority  for  such  a  doctrine. 
So,  too,  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  supposing 
that  the  prophet  had  any  such  thought  in  his  mind, 
when  he  said,  "  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of 
the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some 
to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt !"  Strange  that 
any  one  should  ever  have  thought  so  !  Mr.  W.  must 
have  a  very  mean  opinion  of  their  discernment !  Ac- 
cording to  him  and  his  brethren,  neither  of  these  pas- 
sages has  any  reference  to  a  future  state. 

What  says  Paul  of  such  1  "  Shun  profane  and  vain 
babblings ;  for  they  will  increase  unto  more  ungodliness, 
and  their  word  will  eat  as  doth  a  canker  :  of  whom  is 
HymenaBus  and  Philetus ;  who  concerning  the  truth 
have  erred,  saying, — That  the  resurrection  is  past 
already  ;  and  overthrow"  the  faith  of  some." 


CHAPTER    XX. 

THE    DAY    OF   JUDGMENT. 

Accountability  confessed,  but  not  as  to  a  future  state — Views 
of  the  Pharisees  in  the  Savior's  day — Scripture  language 
about  the  Judgment — How  understood  at  the  time — The 
Day  of  Judgment  not  in  a  future  state — Mr.  Ba/four's  la- 
bors— Heb.  ix.  27 — The  common  doctrine  discarded  by  them 
all. 

"No  more  shall  Atheists  mock  his  long  delay, 
Ills  vengeance  sleeps  no  more — behold  the  day ! 
Behold  !  the  Judge  descends ;  his  guards  are  nigh ; 
Tempest  and  fire  attend  him  down  the  sky  '. 
When  God  appears  all  nature  shall  adore  him, 
While  sinners  tremble,  saints  rejoice  before  him." — WATTS. 

IT  requires  no  small  effort  to  shake  off  that  sense 
of  accountability,  which  is  universally  and  deeply  im- 
pressed on  the  human  mind.  That  "  God  will  bring 
every  work  into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing, 
whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil,"  is  a  truth 
that  none  but  the  reckless  and  abandoned  can  deny. 
Universalists  maintain  it,  as  they  say,  more  strongly 
than  any  other  people.  They  hold  that  this  world  is 
the  theatre,  and  this  life  the  state,  of  equal  and  exact 
retribution. 


262  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Accountability.  Prevailing  belief  of  the  Jews. 

But  this  sense  of  accountability  with  most  men  has 
to  do  chiefly  with  another  world.  They  expect  that  a 
strict  account  will  be  required  of  them  in  another  state 
for  the  deeds  of  this.  That  such  were  the  prevailing 
opinions  of  the  Jews  in  our  Savior's  day,  even  Univer- 
salists  are  constrained  to  admit.  Referring  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  soul's  immortality,  and  retribution  in  a  fu- 
ture state,  Mr.  Balfour  remarks,  ('  Three  Essays,'  p. 
94,) — "  The  only  thing  which  remains  to  be  shown  is, 
how  these  heathen  traditions  came  to  be  incorporated 
with  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  evident  they  prevailed 
many  ages  before  Christ  appeared,  and  prevailed  both 
among  Jews  and  Gentiles  at  the  commencement  of  the 
Gospel  dispensation"  In  his  ' First  Inquiry,'  (p.  58,) 
he  says — "  Now  I  admit  that  to  this  heathen  notion, 
[the  idea  of  Hades  being  a  place  of  punishment  after 
death,']  our  Lord  might  allude  in  the  parable  before  us. 
The  Jews  had,  in  our  Lord's  day,  imbibed  many  heathen 
notions,  and  this  one  among  the  rest."  He  regards  this 
as  "  the  language  of  the  popular  opinions  of  the  day" 
He  says  also,  (p.  64,)  that  to  speak  of  "  Hades  or  Sheol" 
as  "  a  place  of  torment  after  death, — was  in  accordance 
with  current  opinion — in  perfect  agreement  with  popu- 
lar opinion.  The  opinion  was  current,  but  it  wanted 
the  stamp  of  divine  authority." 

The  mass  of  the  Jewish  nation  were  unquestionably 
Pharisees.  Yet  Mr.  Whittemore  affirms,  ('  Plain  Guide/ 
p.  43,)  that  they  "  are  well  known  to  have  believed  in  end- 
less punishment."  In  the  discussion  between  Messrs. 
A.  Ballou  and  D.  D.  Smith,  at  Boston  in  1834,  the 


THE    DAY   OF   JUDGMENT.  263 

Meaning  ll.i-v  attachi  (1  to  Christ"  The  judgment  tu  coin.- 

termer  has  these  words  ; — "  Permit  me  (p.  7,)  to  re- 
mind you  of  one  great  fact,  viz.  that  the  Jews  of  our 
Savior's  time,  with  the  exception  of  the  small  sect  of 
Sadducees,  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution. 
This,  I  believe,  is  acknowledged  on  all  sides."  Nor 
does  his  opponent  at  all  dispute  the  truth  of  the  ob- 
servation. 

Such  being  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  of  our  Savior's 
day,  in  regard  to  this  doctrine  of  a  future  retribution,  it 
is  to  be  supposed  that  the  language  of  Jesus  and  his 
apostles  on  such  a  subject  would  be  such  as  would  not 
readily  be  misunderstood.  How,  then,  I  ask,  would 
their  hearers,  Jews  or  Gentiles,  have  understood  such 
language  as  the  following  ? — "  Every  idle  word  that 
men  shall  speak,  they  shall  give  account  thereof  in  the 
day  of  judgment. — As  Paul  reasoned  of  righteousness, 
temperance,  and  a  judgment  to  come,  Felix  trembled. 
— He  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge 
the  world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath 
ordained,  whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men, 
in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead. — As  it  is  ap- 
pointed unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this  the  judg- 
ment.— It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom 
in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  thee. — The  Lord 
knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  temptations, 
and  to  reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment  to 
be  punished. — And  the  angels  which  kept  not  their 
first  estate,  but  left  their  own  habitation,  he  hath  re- 
served in  everlasting  chains  unto  darkness,  unto  the 
judgment  of  the  great  day. — For  we  must  all  appear 


264  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

An  awful  ait<:i  native.  No  future  judgment. 

before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ;  that  every  one 
may  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body,  according  to 
that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad." 

How  else  could  such  passages  be  understood  by  those 
to  whom  they  were  addressed,  than  as  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  accountability  to  God  in  a  future  state  for 
the  deeds  of  this  ?  If  they  had  gathered  their  ideas  of 
a  future  judgment  from  the  heathen,  must  they  not 
have  understood,  both  from  Christ  and  his  apostles,  that 
those  ideas  were  correct — that  there  is  to  be  a  day  of 
judgment  after  death — that  this  judgment  will  be  uni- 
versal, and  that  it  will  be  followed  by  an  impartial 
retribution  ?  Most  unquestionably.  Nor  can  we  es- 
cape the  alternative  of  imputing  to  Jesus  and  his  apos- 
tles the  dreadful  guilt  of  deceiving  the  people  on  a 
point  of  infinite  concernment,  unless  we  admit  that 
what  the  Jews  must  inevitably  have  understood  from 
such  language  was  indeed  the  truth. 

Now,  in  the  very  face  of  these  facts  arid  declarations, 
though  in  perfect  consistency  with  their  scheme,  Uni- 
versalists  most  positively  affirm  that 

XXII. — THERE  WILL  NOT  BE  A  DAY  OF  GENERAL  JUDGMENT 

IN  THE  RESURRECTION-STATE. 

This  denial  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course,  from  their 
teaching  that  this  life  is  not  probationary  to  another. 
And  yet  it  may  be  well  to  look  at  the  confident  man- 
ner in  which  they  speak  of  it ;  as  though  the  question 
were  settled  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  reversal. 

In  this  fearful  path  Mr.  Ballou  as  usual  leads  the 


THE    DAY    OF    JUDGMENT.  265 

The  judgment  not  future.  Destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

way.  "  It  seems  worthy  of  special  notice,"  he  re- 
marks, ('  Atonement,'  pp.  157,  '8,)  "  that  in  every  in- 
stance in  which  Jesus  spake  of  his  coming  to  judge 
men,  and  to  reward  them  according  to  their  works,  he 
expresses  himself  with  peculiar  emphasis,  in  limiting 
the  time  to  the  generation  in  which  he  lived. — We  think 
we  are  safe  in  saying,  that  on  no  other  one  subject  did 
Jesus  express  himself  with  more  cautious  emphasis. 
Have  we  not,  then,  great  reason  to  marvel,  that  so 
many  of  those  who  are  the  professed  disciples  of  Jesus, 
and  who  profess  to  preach  his  word  to  the  people, 
should  ever  have  so  misconstrued  his  testimony,  as  to 
represent  his  coming  with  his  angels  to  reward  men  is 
to  take  place  in  some  time  which  is  now  future,  and  in 
another  state  of  man's  existence  ?" 

Again,  (p.  164,)  he  says,  "  After  having  satisfied 
our  minds  respecting  the  time  of  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man  to  judge  and  reward  men  according  to 
their  works,  and  being  assured  that  that  event  took 
place  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  and  the  Jews  dis- 
persed, it  remains  an  easy  task  to  settle  the  question 
respecting  the  meaning  and  fulfilment  of  all  the  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament  which  speak  of  that  judg- 
ment, and  the  awful  calamities  which  fell  on  that 
people.  But  we  must  always  keep  in  mind  the  fact 
that  all  those  Scriptures  were  fulfilled  in  that  genera- 
tion in  which  Jesus  and  his  disciples  lived." 

The  work,  thus  begun  by  Mr.  Ballou,  must  be  carried 
on.     To  this  Mr.  Balfour  diligently  applies  himself. 
23 


•266  UNIVERSALISM   AS  IT  IS. 

Balfour's  labori  on  this  doctrine  A  grand  mistake. 

"  Hence  comment  after  comment,  spun  as  fine 
As  bloated  spiders  draw  the  flimsy  line  : 
Hence  the  same  word  that  bids  our  lusts  obey, 
Is  misapplied  to  sanctify  their  sway  : 
If  stubborn  Greek  refuse  to  be  his  friend, 
Hebrew  or  Syriac  shall  be  forc'd  to  bend : 
If  languages  and  copies  all  cry — No ! 
Somebody  prov'd  it  centuries  ago. 
Like  trout  pursued,  the  critic  in  despair 
Darts  to  the  mud,  and  finds  his  safety  there." 

The  result  of  his  diligent  investigation  is  an  Essay  oi 
eighty-five  pages,  12mo.,  in  which  he  professes  to  have 
examined  "  all  the  places  where  the  words  rendered 
*  judge,  judgment,  condemned,  condemnation,  damned, 
damnation,'  &c.,  are  used  in  the  New  Testament."  The 
conclusion  to  which  he  arrives,  is  the  same  as  that  with 
which  he  started.  He  went  through  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  the  purpose  of  bending  it  to  his  purpose,  and, 
therefore,  we  must  not  be  surprised  to  hear  him  say,  at 
the  end  of  his  journey,  (pp.  304,  J5,)  '  The  sacred  writ- 
ers— never  express  a  judgment  or  punishment  beyond 
death  by  these  terms. — Heb.  ix.  27,  is  the  only  text  in 
the  Bible  which  speaks  of  a  judgment  after  death,  and 
we  leave  it  with  every  candid  man  to  say,  if  we  have 
not  shown  that  it  has  no  reference  to  punishment  in  a 
future  state."  He  speaks  of  it  as  a  "  grand  mistake," 
to  "  apply  the  passages  which  speak  of  this  judgment 
to  one  in  another  state  of  existence." 

It  may  gratify  the  reader  to  learn  in  what  manner  he 
disposes  of  that  knotty  passage — Heb.  ix.  27, — which 
he  allows,  does  "  speak  of  a  judgment  after  death." — 


THE    DAY    OF   JUDGMENT.  267 

One  kiiui  ..(judgment  after  death.  That  judgment  d> 

"  What  judgment,  then,"  he  says,  (pp.  270,'!,)  "  comes 
after  death  ? — I  answer,  the  judgment  God  pronounced 
on  all  mankind,  Gen.  iii.  19, e  dust  thou  art  and  unto 
dust  skalt  thou  return.9  Here  is  a  judgment  which 
comes  after  death,  which  is  visible,  universal,  cer- 
tain, and  disputed  by  no  man."  But  it  seems  to 
have  escaped  the  recollection  of  Mr.  Balfour  that,  ac- 
cording to  his  system,  the  return  of  the  body  to  the  dust 
is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  judgment.  It  is  according 
to  a  natural  constitution  of  the  human  frame,  they  say, 
and  would  have  taken  place  had  man  never  sinned. 

For  this  reason,  because  it  involves  the  idea  that 
death  or  the  consequences  of  death  are  a  judgment, 
this  exposition,  though  so  satisfactory  to  Mr.  Balfour, 
that  he  says,  (p.  305,) — "  we  leave  it  with  every  candid 
man  to  say,  if  we  have  not  shown,  that  it  has  no  refer- 
ence to  punishment  in  a  future  state," — has  met  with 
but  little  favor  among  his  brethren.  There  can  be, 
therefore,  but  few  candid  men  among  them  ! 

The  explanation,  most  popular  among  them,  of  this 
stubborn  text,  is  the  following : — The  word '  men/  should 
be  translated  the  men,  meaning  "  the  priests  under  the 
law  ;"  the  death,  here  spoken  of,  is  the  death  of  the 
high  priest,  who  "  is  represented  as  being  slain  in 
those  sacrifices  that  were  offered," — a  figurative,  and 
not  a  real,  death ;  *  the  judgment'  refers  to  the  high 
priest's  entering  into  the  holy  place,  bearing  the  breast- 
plate of  judgment,  and  obtaining  acceptance  for  him- 
self and  all  the  people.  Thus  the  passage  is  strip- 
ped of  all  reference  to  a  future  state  ;  and  may  be 


268  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Heb.  ix.  27.  The  meaning  discovered. 

paraphrased  thus ;  '  Plain  Guide,'  (p.  268,) — "  As  it  is 
appointed  unto  men,  [the  high  priests]  once  to  die  [in 
their  sacrifice],  and  after  this  the  judgment  [which 
they  bore  upon  their  breasts]  ;  so  Christ  was  once  offer- 
ed," &c. 

Now  "  this"  explanation,  Mr.  Whittemore  says,  or 
this  reference  of  the  whole  passage  "  to  the  sacrificial 
death  of  the  high  priests  under  the  law,"  any  person 
will  perceive  at  once,  who  will  read  the  whole  passage !" 
And  yet  this  explanation,  so  far  as  can  be  learned, 
never  occurred  to  a  single  mortal,  until  it  was  invented 
by  Hosea  Ballou.  His  account  of  the  matter  is  this : 
"  When  I  lived  (<  Fut.  Retribut.'  p.  182,)  in  Portsmouth, 
N.  H.,  some  fourteen  or  fifteen  years  ago,  (i.  e.  about 
1817  or  1818)  I  was  made  exceedingly  glad,  by  disco- 
vering, in  my  study  on  Heb.  ix.  27,  28,  what  I  now  be- 
lieve to  be  the  true  application  and  use  of  the  passage. — 
I  immediately  communicated  my  thoughts  on  this  text, — 
and  all  accepted  the  exposition  with  approbation  and 
delight."  And  now  they  are  willing,  one  and  all,  appa- 
rently, to  risk  a  future  day  of  judgment  on  this  far- 
fetched, strained,  unnatural,  and  recently-invented 
explanation  of  a  text  which  plainly  declares  that 
"  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this 
the  judgment !"  O  the  credulity  of  Ballou's  disciples ! 
And  so  far  from  Mr.  Balfour's  perceiving  it, (t  at  once," 
he  appears  to  have  been  wholly  dissatisfied  with  it, 
and  so  to  have  wrought  out  his  own  in  its  place. 

But,  however  they  may  disagree  as  to  the  best  man- 
ner of  disposing  of  some  hard  sayings  in  Scripture, 


THE   DAY   OF   JUDGMENT.  269 

Much  injury  done  by  UK:  doctrine.  The  general  judgim-nt  past. 

they  are  determined  that  there  shall  be  no  such  thing 
as  a  day  of  general  judgment  for  all  mankind  at  the 
end  of  the  world.  "  As  we  do  not  believe,"  says  Mr. 
Ballou,  ('  Expositor,'  1. 66,) "  that  this  commonly-receiv- 
ed doctrine,  concerning  what  our  Christian  doctors  call 
the  last  day,  is  taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  being  per- 
suaded that  much  injury  has  been  done  to  the  cause  of 
pure  religion,"  [Universalism]  "  by  its  having  been  in- 
culcated and  believed,  we  feel  it  a  duty  incumbent  on 
us  to  endeavor  to  convince  them  that  their  views  are 
erroneous  ;  and  that  they  are  contrary  to  Scripture,  and 
inconsistent  with  themselves." 

It  is  said  by  Mr.  Whittemore  in  the  '  Danvers'  Dis- 
cussion/ (p.  28,) — "  I  wish  to  know  where  he  finds 
any  thing  said  in  the  Scriptures  about  a  day.  of  judg- 
ment after  death  ?  The  Bible  speaks  of  a  judgment, 
and  a  day  of  judgment,  but  it  no  where  tells  us  that  this 
judgment  is  to  take  place  in  the  future  siate."  Of  the 
day  of  judgment  he  remarks,  ('  Plain  Guide,'  p.  187,) 
"  At  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation,  there  was  a 
general  judgment  among  the  nations  of  the  earth." 
For  which  we  have  only  the  word  of  Mr.  W.  History 
says  nothing  about  it. 

"  The  scene  (p.  239,  )of  the  events  described  in"  Rev. 
xx,  "  is  laid  upon  the  earth,  and  does  not  appertain  to 
another  state  of  being."  So  dogmatically  they  can 
speak  in  order  to  get  rid  of  that  striking  passage — 
"And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before  God," 
&c.  But  at  other  times  they  are  free  to  admit  that  the 
book  is  beyond  their  comprehension. 
23* 


270  UN1VERSALISM    AS    IT    IS. 

A  reflection  on  God.  Very  i  ijurious  to  man. 

"  The  famed  hypothesis  of  afuture  general  judgment" 
says  Mr.  Balch,  (<  Expositor,'  II.  311,)  "  and  the  argu- 
ment founded  upon  it  in  favor  of  a  future  world  in  which 
to  rectify  the  mistakes  of  the  present,  is  a  bold  reflection 
upon  the  purity  of  God's  character,  and  the  equity  of 
his  government. — We  find  it  impossible  to  reconcile 
such  views  with  the  acknowledged  justice  •  and  equal 
administration  of  the  divine  Being. — To  what  extrava- 
gance and  folly,  not  to  say,  blasphemy,  has  not  the  wis- 
dom of  this  world  driven  its  deluded  votaries  !" 

But  the  junior  preachers  are  much  more  positive. 
They  can  scarcely  endure  it,  that  their  fellow-men 
should  be  so  silly  as  to  adopt  so  foolish  a  notion. 
"  There  is  neither  reason  nor  consistency"  says  Mr.  O. 
A.  Skinner,  (p.  229,)  "  in  the  idea  that  a  day  has  been 
set  apart  in  eternity,  for  the  judgment  of  the  world. — We 
find  the  work  of  judgment  always  represented  as  taking 
place  in  the  earth.  Not  an  instance  can  be  found,  in 
all  the  Scriptures,  where  it  is  declared  to  be  in  eterni- 
ty." "  The  day  of  judgment — (p.  240,)  is  not  yet  future, 
but  took  place  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago !"  "  The 
Savior  (p.  241,)  judged  the  world  when  the  Jews  were 
destroyed."  "  No  reference  (p.  243,)  is  made  to  eter- 
nity in  any  thing  connected  with  the  judgment. 

We  are  assured  by  Mr.  Williamson,  ('  Exposition,' 
pp.  115,  '6,  '?,)  that  the  belief  of  it"  [the  common  doc- 
trine of  the  day  of  judgment]  "  does  no  good,  but  much 
positive  injury,  and  the  thing  itself  is  as  utterly  useless, 
as  faith  in  its  existence."  "  I  hold  the  common  doc- 
trine of  a  day  of  future  judgment  not  only  useless,  but 


THE    DAY    OF    JUDGMENT.  271 

Au  indcft  noiblc  position.  A  piece  of  absurdity. 


and  abominable."  He  calls  it  "  an  absurd  and 
indefensible  position."  "  I  am  free  to  admit,"  he  adds, 
"  that  the  Scriptures  speak  not  only  of  a  day  of  judg- 
ment, but  of  many  and  different  days  of  judgment  ;  and 
that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  speak  of  one 
of  these  days  by  way  of  eminence,  as  '  the  day  of  judg- 
ment.' But  —  you  will  find  that  all  these  days  are  172  this 
icorld,  and  that  it  is  men  in  the  flesh  and  not  immortal 
spirits  in  the  resurrection,  that  are  to  be  judged." 

One  more  witness  will  surely  suffice.  Mr.  Sawyer 
says,  (<  Letters  to  Remington,'  pp.  109,  111,)  "Itisnot 
trur  that  there  is  to  be  a  judgment,  or  that  he  [Christ]  is 
to  act  as  a  judge,  after  he  descends  from  the  mediatorial 
throne.  —  There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence,  either  in 
the  Bible  or  to  be  derived  from  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject, that  there  is  to  be  a  general  judgment,  or  any  judg- 
ment, after  the  close  of  Christ's  mediatorial  reign." 
"  You  assume  that  there  is  to  be  a  great  day  of  general 
judgment  after  Christ  descends  from  his  mediatorial 
throne,  and  delivers  up  his  kingdom,  and  God  is  all  in 
all,"  and  he  calls  this,  "  a  piece  of  absurdity,  destitute, 
as  it  necessarily  is,  of  every  shade  of  countenance  from 
Scripture."  He  refers  in  this  language,  as  appears  from 
p.  112,  to  what  is  usually  called  the  final  judgment, 
when  Christ  will  act  no  longer  as  a  Mediator,  but  a 
divine  Judge  ;  and  this  he  calls  "  a  piece  of  absurdity  /" 
May  neither  he  nor  his  brethren  find  it,  to  their  sorrow, 
a  day  of  dreadful  doom  ! 

If  it  be,  as  the  wisest  and  best  of  men  believe  it  to 
be,  a  doctrine  most  clearly  revealed;  and  fully  establish- 


272  UNIVERSALISM  AS    IT    IS. 

Stumbling-blocks. 

ed,  how  dreadful  must  and  will  be  the  doom  of  men 
that  blind  the  eyes  of  their  fellow-men  to  such  awful 
danger !  In  case  it  is  true,  then  to  them  it  may  truly 
be  said,  "  Ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against 
men  ;  for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,  neither  suffer  yc 
them  that  are  entering  to  go  in  /" 


CHAPTER   XXI. 

DEVIL    AND    HIS    ANGELS. 

English  Translation  of  the  Bible— Mr.  Kneeland's  version—- 
neither angels  nor  devils — Satan  a  symbolical  being  only — 
Angels  only  our  fellow-men — Devil  is  the  carnal  mind — No 
agreement  as  to  the  i4 entity  of  the  devil — Variety  of  defini- 
tions— Sadduceeans. 

14  Oil !  what  a  scene  is  here  !"     "  Two  warring  worlds 
Of  more  than  mortal  mounted  on  the  wing  ! — 
Ili^'h  hov'ring  o'er  this  little  brand  of  strife  ! 
This  sublunary  ball !— But  strife  for  what? 
In  their  own  cause  conflicting  ?     No ;  in  thine, 
In  man's.     His  single  int'rest  blows  the  flame ; 
His  the  sole  stake  ;  his  fate  the  trumpet  sounds, 
Which  kindles  war  immortal.     How  it  burns  ! 
Tumultuous  swarms  of  deities  in  arms !" — 
"  Think  not  this  fiction :— '  There  was  war  in  heav'n.'  " 

YOOJTG. 

ONE  of  the  greatest  hindrances  to  the  spread  of  Uni- 
versalism  in  our  land  is,  the  wonderful  and  universal 
influence  of  our  Received  Version  of  the  Bible.  Even- 
body  knows,  that  our  English  translation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures was  made  by  men  who  most  thoroughly  believed 
the  orthodox  creed,  concerning  hell  and  damnation. 
The  vast  learning,  which  they  brought  to  the  work  of 


274  UNIVEKSALISM  AS  IT  IS.      . 

Received  Version.  Kneeland  prepares  to  supplant,  it. 


translation,  and  the  diligence  with  which  they  pried 
into  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  oracles,  seem  but  to  have 
confirmed  them  in  this  belief.  They  accordingly  pro- 
duced a  translation,  the  reading  of  which,  in  every  sub- 
sequent age,  has  tended  to  lead  both  old  and  young 
into  the  same  belief. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  build  up  Universalism,  it  be- 
comes necessary — indispensably  necessary  —  for  the 
preacher  to  throw  down  this  strong  foundation.  Con- 
sequently, in  all  his  sermons,  you  find  him  arraigning 
this  dreadful  translation.  It  seems  to  be  no  small  part 
of  his  work  utterly  to  destroy  all  confidence  in  such  a 
version.  e  This  is  wrong,  and  that  is  wrong' — is  so 
often  repeated  that  the  poor  hearer  knows  not  what  to 
believe.  The  preacher  flies  off  to  Hebrew  and  Greek? 
where  he  knows  that  his  hearers  cannot  follow  him,  and 
finding  the  coast  clear,  he  expatiates,  with  all  the  glad- 
ness of  a  liberated  slave,  in  his  freeedom.  Most  pro- 
bably, he  could  not  tell  an  Aleph  from  a  Beth,  if  his 
life  depended  on  it.  But  the  people  think  him  won- 
drous wise,  and  this  is  enough  for  his  purpose.  "  Gash- 
mu  saith  it." 

To  remove  this  difficulty,  Mr.  Kneeland,  "  entering 
into  the  work  of  the  ministry  totally  ignorant  of  the 
dead  languages,"  set  himself,  "  through  indefatigable 
labor  and  toil,"  to  obtain  sufficient  knowledge  for  the 
work  of  a  new  translation — one  that  should  be  worthy 
of  the  confidence  of  the  wrorld.  Into  whose  hands 
could  such  a  work  be  committed  with  more  hope  of 
complete  success  ?  Mr.  Kneeland  had  long  been  known 


DEVIL    AND  HIS    ANGLIC.  275 


Sketch  of  Kn. ,  I  uul.  His  new  Translation. 

as  one  of  the  most  devoted  advocates  of  Universalism. 
He  was  received  into  fellowship  as  one  of  their  preach- 
ers in  1803,  and  in  1811  "was  appointed  the  first 
landing  clerk"  of  the  General  Convention,  of  which 
he  was  chosen  Moderator  in  1813.  In  1823  he  com- 
pleted the  work  of  translating  the  New  Testament, 
which  was  shortly  after  given  to  the  public,  in  two 
12mo.  volumes  of  parallel  columns  of  Greek  and 
English.  He  designed  the  work  to  "be  instrumental, 
in  the  hand  of  God,  of  correcting  some  of  the  monstrous 
errors  that  now  exist  in  the  Christian  church,  and  of 
>  stablishing  the  truth  of  that  gospel  which  was  preached 
to  Abraham;"  [Universalism.]  Of  course,  no  one 
would  suppose  that  Mr.  Kneeland,  after  preaching  the 
doctrine  twenty  years,  was  in  the  least  degree  prejudi- 
ced I  The  English  translation  was  printed  separately 
in  one  column,  and  designed  utterly  to  supplant  the 
Received  Version. 

But,  alas  for  the  blindness  of  the  world  !  The  work 
fell  almost  still-born  from  the  press,  and  is  now  among 
the  things  that  were — much  like  its  author.  Even  the 
ungrateful  Universalists  refused  to  substitute  it  for  the 
book  of  their  childhood,  and  Mr.  Whittemore  says  oi 
it  (<  Mod.  Hist.,'  p.  416,)—"  The  l  Improvrd  \Yrsion'  is 
closely  followed,  except  in  a  few  attempts  at  emenda- 
tion, of  which  we  can  say  little  in  praise" 

My  object  in  referring  to  it  in  this  connection  is,  to 
show  the  manner  in  which  the  author,  in  common  with 
his  brethren  since,  who  have  profited  by  his  labors, 
disposes  of  the  "  Devil  and  his  Angels."  This  I  propose 


276  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  common  doctrine  of  the  devil.  The  Universallst  doctrine. 

to  do  in  proof  of  their  having  adopted  the  following 
article  of  belief:  viz. 

XXIII.  THERE  ARE  NO  MERELY  SPIRITUAL  BEINGS  CALLED 

ANGELS    EITHER    HOLY    OR    UNHOLY. 

The  '  deviP  and  '  Satan'  are  by  Mr.  Kneeland  con- 
verted into  an  ( impostor'  and  an  '  adversary.'  The 
temptation  of  Christ  he  regards  as  '  a  visionary  scene,' 
and  remarks  (I.  23,)  that  "  the  introduction  of  the  im- 
postor, or  devil,  into  this  scenical  representation,  no 
more  proves  the  real  existence  of  such  a  being,  than 
the  introduction  of  the  lamb  or  the  red  dragon,  in  the 
apocalyptic  vision,  is  a  proof  of  the  real  existence  of 
those  symbolical  agents." 

Again,  he  says  (p.  25,),  "  That  lunatics  and  epilep- 
tics were  possessed  by  devils,  or  fallen  angels^  (though 
it  is  an  opinion  which  prevailed  early,)  is  nowhere  as- 
serted, nor  even  hinted  at,  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
is  totally  destitute  of  foundation  both  in  reason  and  re- 
velation." Where  our  Lord  says — c  The  enemy  that 
sowed  them  is  the  devil,' — he  remarks,  (p.  56,)  that  the 
devil  here  means — "  the  principle  of  evil  personified" 
"  Satan"  he  tells  us,  (p.  233,)  is  the  "  personification 
of  the  principle  of  opposition"  When  Satan  enters 
Judas,  it  is  nothing  more  (p.  263,)  than  "  an  evil  dispo- 
sition, a  covetous  spirit."  When  the  Savior  tells  the 
Jews — <  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil9 — he  speaks  of 
(p.  312,)  "  the  principle  of  moral  evil  personified ;"  the 
devil  is  only  a  "  symbolical  person" 

'  The  prince  of  this  world'  is  (p.  328,)  "  the  Jewish 


DEVIL   AND  HIS   ANGELS.  277 

Specimens  of  a  new  version.  The  example  widely  followed. 

hierarchy  and  magistracy."  The  devil,  who  put  it  into 
the  head  of  Judas  to  betray  Christ,  was  (p.  330,)  "  his 
own  bad  passsions."  The  angels,  who  are  called  upon 
(Heb.  i.  6,)  to  worship  the  Son,  are  messengers,  or  he- 
ralds of  God's  word,  or  prophets  ;  i.  e.  he  says,  (II.  294,) 
"  Let  all  the  prophets  and  messengers  of  God  acknow- 
ledge him  as  their  superior."  The"  ministering  spirits'' 
in  v.  14,  are  the  prophets  also ;  "  Here  (p.  295,)  the 
former  prophets  are  called  ministering  spirits."  The 
"  angels,"  whom  "  God  spared  not,  but  cast  down  to 
hell,"  were  (p.  349,)  "  the  spies  who  were  sent  to  ex- 
plore the  land  of  Canaan !"  "  But,"  he  adds,  "  if  the 
common  interpretation  be  admitted,  it  will  not  establish 
the  popular  doctrine  concerning  fallen  angels"  '*  He 
who  committeth  sin  (p.  358,)  is  of  the  devil"—"  the 
impostor,  not  a  real,  but  a  hypothetical  and  fictitious 
being."  "  The  angels  who  kept  not  their  own  estate" 
are  (p.  368,)  "  the  messengers  who  watched  not  duly 
over  their  own  principality,  but  deserted  their  proper 
habitation,"  whom  "  he  kept  with  unknown  chains  un- 
der darkness  (punished  them  with  judicial  blindness  of 
mind)  to  the  judgment  of  a  great  day,  i.  e.  when  they 
were  destroyed  by  a  plague.  Alluding  to  the  falsehood 
and  punishment  of  the  spies."  "  By  the  synagogue  of 
the  adversary  (Satan)  are  to  be  understood  those  of  the 
Jews  who  opposed  the  Gospel."  (p.  378.) 

Such  are  the  ways  in  which  this  learned  expositor 
made  the  word  of  God  of  no  effect.     And  his  example 
has  been  widely,  yea,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  fol- 
lowed in  the  sect      His  own  cue  he,  doubtless,  took 
24 


278  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  devil  nothing  but  the  carnal  mind.       This  definition  applied  to  Christ. 

from  the  arch-" messenger"  Hosea  Ballou.  We  are 
told,  '  Atonement,'  (pp.  27,  8,)  "  by  angels  are  meant 
messengers,  who  are  employed  by  God,  for  the  informa- 
tion of  their  fellow-men."  He  declares  (p.  30,)  "  I 
have  not  even  the  shadow  of  evidence,  from  Scripture 
or  reason,  to  support  the  sentiment"  that  man  was 
tempted  to  sin  by  a  fallen  angel.  "  Perhaps,  however," 
he  adds,  (p.  47)  "  the  reader  may  be  surprised  to  find, 
that  we  do  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  being  so 
universally  acknowledged  among  Christian  people." 
"  We  have  no  objection  (p.  48,)  to  believing  that  there  is 
such  a  devil  as  the  Scripture  speaks  of.  He  is  called  the 
Old  Serpent,  and  is  the  same  we  have  described  which 
beguiled  the  woman  in  the  beginning ;  and  it  is  the 
carnal  mind  which  is  enmity  against  God !"  That  is 
to  say — the  devil  of  the  Bible  is  the  carnal  mind  !  And 
this  carnal  mind  the  woman  had,  before  she  sinned ! 

The  same  language  he  uses  in  his  ( Lecture  Sermons/ 
(pp.  212,  213,)  "  That  the  devil  was  ever  a  holy  an- 
gel, we  have  no  account  in  the  Scriptures  ;  that  any 
man  was  ever  tempted  by  an  agent  distinct  from  the 
powers  of  flesh  and  blood,  we  have  no  reason  to  be- 
lieve." "  The  word  '  devil'  or  c  Satan,'  means  an  an- 
versary,  an  enemy,  an  opposer.  And  this  character 
every  man  find  sin  himself."  "  This  '  carnal  mind,' — 
this  *  enmity  against  God,'  is  the  devil." 

This  definition  he  does  not  hesitate  to  apply  to  the  case 
of  the  Savior  himself.  He  maintains,  that  Jesus  was 
tempted,  ('  Atonement,'  p.  49,)  by  "  fleshly  appetite, — 
natural  ambition, — and  presumption — in  all  points,  as 


DEVIL  AND  HIS  ANGELS.  279 

A  Mipentltlouii  niiii.iii.  Tim  Second  Inquiry. 

we  are  yet  without  sin."  Who  before  ever  dared  to  im- 
pute to  the  holy  Jesus,  a  carnal  mind,  which  an  apostle 
says,  *  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed 
can  be  V  But  the  reader  has  ceased  ere  this  to  won- 
der at  the  daring  of  these  theological  desperadoes. 

Mr.  B.  is  still  more  positive,  ('  L.  S.,'  p.  72  :)  "  The 
opinion  which  has  long  maintained,  that  the  first  tempta- 
tion which  led  to  the  introduction  of  sin  into  our  world, 
was  the  instigation  of  a  fallen  Angel,  appears  to  be 
without  foundation  or  authority  in  the  Scriptures,  which 
plainly  indicate,  that  the  constitutional  infirmities  of 
flesh  and  blood  are,  in  fact,  the  source  from  whence  all 
sinful  temptations  rise."  And  so,  too,  of  sin  since  the 
fall,  he  says,  (p.  73,)  "  that  the  common  notion  which 
Christian  people  entertain  and  cultivate  in  the  minds  of 
their  children,  of  an  invisible  agent,  who  was  once  a 
holy  angel  in  heaven,  that  now  continually  accompa- 
nies people,  wherever  they  go,  and  is  all  the  time 
tempting  them  to  sin,  is  nothing  more  than  an  inven- 
tion ofttie  wisdom  of  the  flesh,  and  is  supported  by  no 
other  means  than  superstition." 

But  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  since  the  preju- 
dice was  deeply  rooted,  Mr.  Balfour  again  sets  himself 
to  work,  and  produces  his  '  Second  Inquiry,'  called 
'  An  Inquiry  into  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning 
the  Devil  and  Satan."  Of  which  it  is  very  modestly 
said,  (<  Mod.  Hist.,'  p.  460,)—"  in  this  work  the  com- 
mon doctrine  of  a  superhuman  devil,  who,  it  is  thought, 
was  once  an  angel  of  light  is  exploded"  very  much  to 
the  relief  unquestionably  of  the  whole  order.  Having 


280  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  devil  defined.  Hard  to  identify. 

abolished  Hell  in  his  *  First  Inquiry,'  what  else  could 
be  done  with  the  <  Devil  and  his  Angels,'  but  to  ex- 
plode them,  since  *  there  was  found  no  place  for  them  V 

After  stating  the  common  doctrine,  he  proceeds  to 
call  in  question  and  deny,  that  Eve  was  tempted  by  a 
fallen  angel,  and  says,  (p.  26,)  "  that  we  are  indebted 
to  Milton,  rather  than  Moses,  for  the  common  opinions 
entertained  on  this  subject."  To  the  question,  '  What 
was  it  that  deceived  Eve,'  he  replies,  (p.  27,)  "  I  an- 
swer— lust,  or  desire  in  Eve."  The  Satan  who  "  pro- 
voked David  to  number  Israel,"  was  (p.  43,)  "  some 
evil  passion  or  desire  in  his  own  mind."  "  The  account 
of  Satan,"  in  the  commencement  of  the  book  of  Job,  he 
thinks,  (p.  53,)"  is  introduced  to  be  condemned  and  not 
sanctioned," — "  for  the  very  purpose  (p.  54,)  of  refuting 
such  an  opinion,"  as  "  the  existence  of  such  an  evil 
being."  He  professes,  (pp.  64,  '5,)  to  have  shown 
"  that  the  Old  Testament  gives  no  countenance  to  the 
common  doctrine  of  a  fallen  angel,  under  the  name 
serpent,  Satan,  or  any  other."  "  The  Jews,"  he  adds, 
(p.  66,)  "  before  they  entered  Canaan,  knew  nothing 
about  the  devil,"  and  "  were  obliged  to  go  to  a  foreign 
land  to  find  the  devil ;"  and  concludes  that  "  they  be- 
came acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  the  devil"  in 
Babylon. 

The  New  Testament,  he  maintains,  is  as  silent  as 
the  Old  in  respect  to  this  personage.  But  in  order  to 
get  rid  of  him,  he  is  obliged  to  give  him  as  many 
aliases,  as  the  most  notorious  culprit  in  Sing-sing.  He 
calls  him, (p.  100,) "  the  unbelieving  Jews;"  (p.  103,) 


DEVIL  AND  HIS  ANGELS.  281 

Numerous  aliiurs.  Hard  to  cart  him  out 

"  a  spirit  of  infirmity,"  "  the  rigidity  of  the  back 
bone;"  (p.  105,)  "  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  Jesus 
and  the  secret  purpose  to  betray  hirn  ;"  and  a  "  fixed 
determination  to  execute  his  purpose  ;"  (p.  108,)  "  lust 
or  love  of  money  ;"  (p.  109,)  "  the  darkness  of  igno- 
rance, superstition,  and  wickedness ;"  and  "  the  perse- 
cuting Jews  ;  (p.  111.)"  the  adversaries  of  the  gos- 
pel;" (p.  112,)  "  lust  or  sinful  desire;"  and  "  an 
unforgiving  temper  of  mind;"  and  (p.  113,)  "the 
messenger  of  Satan"  he  calls  "  a  false  teacher." 
What  a  queer  book  the  Bible  must  be  in  the  eyes  of  a 
Universalist !  Like  the  Sibylline  leaves,  he  makes  it 
speak  just  according  to  his  notion,  and  seldom  twice 
alike.  Mr.  Balfour,  however,  inclines  to  the  opinion, 
that  "  the  opposing  Jews"  are  most  frequently  honored 
with  this  «  Babylonish  garment."  "  They,"  (p.  123,) 
"  were  the  adversary  the  devil."  But  as  such  an  in- 
terpretation would  often  be  ridiculous,  he  is  obliged  to 
give  the  devil  as  many  shapes  almost  as  the  ancient 
witches  are  said  to  have  assumed.  The  merest  child 
can  see  that  he  is  often  hard  pushed  to  "  cast  out  the 
devil"  from  the  Bible,  and  rid  "  the  order"  of  such  an 
impolite  intruder.  Such  a  use  of  metaphorical  lan- 
guage, as  he  supposes  the  historians  and  divines  of  the 
New  Testament  to  have  employed,  is  without  a  paral- 
lel. "  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,"  says  the  mighty 
Robert  Hall,  (*  Works/  III.  48,)  "  that  a  more  untena- 
ble position  was  never  advanced,  nor  one  which  evinces 
a  more  unpardonable  inattention  to  the  operations  of 
thought,  and  the  laws  of  composition." 
24* 


282  UNFVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

No  armor  n:e:led'  The  devil  repudiated. 

Encouraged  by  the  boldness  of  Mr.  Balfour,  and  de- 
lighted with  his  wonderful  discovery,  the  whole  bro- 
therhood can  now  laugh  as  good-humoredly  about  his 
Satanic  Majesty  as  though  Mr.  Balfour  had  actually 
annihilated  "  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air." 
They  seern  to  have  in  consequence  forgotten  the  advice 
of  Paul,  (Eph.  vi.  11,  12,)—"  Put  on  the  whole  armor 
of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles 
of  the  devil ;  for  we  wrestle  NOT  AGAINST  FLESH  AND 
BLOOD,  but  against  principalities,  against  powers,  against 
the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  against  spiri- 
tual wickedness  [wicked  spirits]  in  high  places." 

The  calamities  brought  upon  Job,  according  to  Mr. 
Rogers,  had  no  connection  with  the  agency  of  a  per- 
sonal devil.  "  In  bringing  these  evils  to  pass,"  he 
says,  (c  Pro  and  Con  of  Univer>alism,'  p.  289,)  "  God 
employed  the  agency  of  Sabine  and  Chaldean  free- 
booters, as  well  as  winds  and  fire  and  disease.  These 
agencies  are,  in  the  Bible,  personified  under  the  name 
of  Satan  ;" — four  more  aliases.  How  wonders  mul- 
tiply ! 

The  same  writer  assures  us,  (p.  256,)  "  that  common 
sense  utterly  repudiates  the  idea,  that  any  high  order  of 
intelligences  should  prove  themselves  such  idiots  as  to 
engage  in  an  open  war  with  Omnipotence.  I  assign  to 
the  popular  notion,  therefore,  concerning  personal 
devils,  an  eminent  and  undoubted  place  amongst  old 
wives'  fables."  Undoubted  ?  Does  the  man  think  to 
impose  upon  us  ?  Does  he  not  know  that  such  a  sen- 
timent as  he  advances,  has  been  doubted  the  world 


DEVIL  AND  HIS  ANGELS.  283 

Puerility.  A  vi-iona-y  notion. 

over,  in  every  age,  until  recently  ?  Said  Robert  Hall, 
who  knew  as  much  about  common  sense,  doubtless, 
as  Mr.  Rogers  or  his  brethren,  "  the  attempt  to  set 
aside,  (III.  43,)  the  doctrine  on  this  subject,  derived 
from  Scripture,  under  the  notion  of  its  being  unphilo- 
sophical,  is  puerile  and  unmeaning ;"  and  "  to  suppose 
our  own  species,  (p.  41,)  to  be  the  highest  production 
of  Divine  power,  would  indicate  irrational  and  puerile 
presumption." 

But  these  writers  cannot  apparently  believe  in  the 
existence  of  any  intelligent  beings  but  God  and  man. 
They,  as  well  as  the  ancient "  Sadducees,  say  that  there 
is  neither  angel  nor  spirit."  "  What  did  Jesus  intend 
by  the  Angels  V9  asks  Mr.  Whittemore ;  (4  Plain 
Guide,'  p.  103.)  "  Familiar  traditions  have  confined 
the  application  of  this  word  almost  exclusively  to  su- 
perhuman beings.'*  But  Mr.  W.  knows  that  by  an- 
gels who  are  to  destroy  the  enemies  of  Christ,  "  is  cer- 
tainly meant,  (p.  104,)  the  Roman  armies!" 

A  writer  in  the  «  Gospel  Anchor,'  (II.  126,)  thinks 
the  story  of  the  fallen  angels,  "  one  of  the  most  absurd 
notions  ever  started  by  the  wild  imagination  of  man." 
If  so,  what  wild  visionaries  are  all  the  orthodox,  even 
the  most  learned  and  judicious  ?  It  were  well  for  us 
all  to  go  to  school  again,  and  under  the  luminous  t»  ,,<-h- 
ing  of  Messrs.  Kneeland  and  Balfour,  we  might 
learn  to  despise  such  silly  notions  as  the  fall  of  an  Is. 
the  existence  and  agency  of  Satan,  and  the  "  evei  st- 
ing fire  prt-pun  (1  for  the  devil  and  his  angels." 


CHAPTER    XXII. 

CHRISTIANS      HAVE      NO    ORDINANCES. 

RESULTS — Christian  Institutions — The  Sabbath  a  human  de- 
vice— Our  Sunday  not  the  Sabbath — The  Sabbath  ceased 
with  the  Mosaic  dispensation — Our  Sunday  a  weekly  festi- 
val, but  not  holy — Sabbath-journeying  —Baptism— Not  in- 
dispensable toChurch-membership — A  rite  of  initiation  only — 
Never  intended  for  our  observance — Lord's  Supper — Va- 
rious opinions — Not  binding  on  the  conscience — Most  of 
them  repudiate  it — Those  who  do  believe  in  it  do  not  make  it 
a  test  of  fellowship — Churches  rare — A  matter  of  expedien- 
cy— More  than  two-thirds  of  the  Societies  have  none — They 
are  never  large. 

"  O  Italy  !   thy  SABBATHS  will  be  soon 
Our  Sabbaths,  closed  with  mumm'ry  and  buffoon  ; 
Preaching  and  pranks  will  share  the  motley  scene, 
Ours  parcel'd  out,  as  thine  have  ever  been, 
God's  worship  and  the  mountebank  between;" 

Co  u  PER. 

HAVING  seen  what  are  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  Mod- 
ern Universalism  in  America,  and  how  essentially  they 
differ  in  all,  or  nearly  all,  matters  of  faith  from  those 
generally  received,  let  us  now  look  at  some  of  the 
RESULTS  of  this  strange  system.  It  cannot  be  thought 
strange,  if  we  discover,  in  this  respect,  a  wide  depar- 
ture from  the  acknowledged  fruits  of  holiness. 

I  shall,  first,  direct  the  reader's  attention  to  their  no- 


CHRISTIANS    HAVE    NO   SABBATH.  285 

Christian  Institutions.  The  S-ibliath  a  human  device. 

tions,  respecting  what  have  commonly  been  regarded 
as  Christian  Institutions.  It  cannot  be  expected,  that 
these  should  have  much  attraction  for  men,  who  can  so 
easily  discard  long-cherished,  and  deep-rooted,  opinions 
of  divine  truth  itself.  Christian  Institutions  are  seldom 
savory  to  an  unregenerate  heart.  And  such  hearts 
have  they,  unquestionably,  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  in- 
asmuch as  they  utterly  deny  the  common  doctrine  of, 
and  so  cannot  have  experienced,  the  New  Birth. 

To  the  heart  of  the  true  Christian,  the  Sabbath-day 
is  the 

"  Day  of  all  the  week  the  best." 

It  is  the  Lord's  Day — sacred  to  his  service,  never  to  be 
devoted  in  whole  or  in  part  to  secular  labors.  The 
Christian  remembers  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy. 
The  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection,  when  his  Savior 
rested  from  all  his  works  of  atoning  mercy,  is  dearer  to 
him,  and  more  sacred,  than  was  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week  to  the  ancient  Israelite. 

But  the  Universalist  has  no  such  feelings.  He  ob- 
serves the  day  in  some  sense,  it  may  be,  but  not  as  a 
day  set  apart  by  God  for  himself.  He  affirms,  that 

XXIV. — THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH  is  A  MERE  HUMAN 
DEVICE. 

The  "  Observance  of  Sunday  among  the  Primitive 
Christians,"  is  the  title  of  an  article  in  the  first  volume 
of  the  "  Universalist  Expositor,"  from  the  pen  of  Hosea 
Ballou,  jr.  There,  if  any  where,  we  may  expect  to 


286  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Sunday  not  the  Sabbath.  No  authority  for  keeping  it 

find  the  current  views  of  the  sect.  The  following  ex- 
tracts will  show,  in  what  light  the  "  observance  of  Sun- 
day" is  now  regarded  by  Universalists. 

"  It  is  a  custom,"  he  remarks,  (p.  45,)  "  almost  uni- 
versal, to  call  our  Sunday  by  the  sacred  appellation  of 
The  Sabbath,  and  to  represent  it  as  identically  the  insti- 
tution, which  God  delivered,  under  that  name,  to  the 
Israelites  at  Mount  Sinai.  Excepting  the  single  cir- 
cumstance of  its  alleged  transfer  from  the  seventh  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  it  is  supposed  to  remain  unchang- 
ed under  the  gospel  dispensation,  retaining  its  original 
divine  character,  and  possessing  all  the  sanctions  with 
which  it  was  first  established  and  enforced."  "  Such  is 
the  opinion,  which  has  prevailed  in  the  church  for  sev- 
eral ages.  One  object  of  this  article  is  to  point  out  its 
incorrectness.  We  do  not  mean  (p.  46,)  that  there  is 
any  impropriety  in  our  setting  Sunday  apart  from  the 
rest  of  the  week,  as  a  season  for  religious  improvement 
and  public  worship. — But,  then,  such  a  use  of  the 
day  does  not  involve  the  notion,  that  it  is  the  ancient 
sabbath,  and,  consequently,  subject  to  the  laws  of  that 
institution,  or  that  it  has  been  made  peculiarly  holy 
time  by  any  positive  ordinance  from  Heaven.  For  this, 
there  is  no  proof." 

He  calls  it  (p.  47,)  a  "  popular  but  unsupported  opi- 
nion" "  that  Sunday  is  the  Sabbath."  He  says,  (p. 
48,)  "  There  is  no  command,  not  so  much  as  a  formal 
recommendation,  recorded  for  keeping  Sunday  as  holy 
time."  He  represents  Paul  (p.  49,)  as  holding  the 
opinion  "  that  the  observance  even  of  the  Sabbath  was 


CHRISTIANS    HAVE    NO    SABBATH.  287 

The  change  a  fable.  The  Sabbath  long  since  abolished. 

like  circumcision,  a  matter  indifferent  in  itself;"  and 
that,  by  this  he  means  the  institution,  and  not  merely 
the  particular  day,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  he  de- 
nies, (p.  47,)  "  that  the  sabbath  was  ever  transferred 
from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  as- 
sertion," he  remarks,  "  so  often  made,  of  that  change, 
is,  like  many  other  current  stories,  a  mere  fable" 

In  answer  to  the  argument,  that  "  if  we  have  not  the 
precept  of  the  apostles,  we  have  what  is  just  as  valid 
their  example,  for  keeping  Sunday,"  he  remarks,  (p. 
49,) — "  True,  we  have  their  example  for  holding  meet- 
ings, at  least  sometimes,  on  that  day  ;  but  not  for  keep- 
ing it  as  the  Sabbath."  "  That  they  abstained  from 
their  ordinary  employments  through  the  whole  of  the 
day,  we  have  no  evidence ;  and  the  want  of  such  proof 
renders  it  rather  probable  that  they  did  not."  (p.  50.) 

Referring  to  "  the  Christians  of  Justin's  time,"  (p.  53,) 
he  observes — "  They  did  not  consider  it  as  having  any 
connection  with  the  sabbath,  or  as  deriving  any  sacred- 
ness  from  the  injunction  laid  upon  the  Jews  to  hallow 
that  day."  "  The  amount  of  the  whole  is,  that  the 
Apostles  and  primitive  Christians  understood  the  divine 
institution  of  the  sabbath  to  have  expired  with  the  rest  of 
the  Mosaic  economy  ;  and  that  without  any  express  or- 
dinance, it  grew  into  a  custom  with  UK-MI,  in  appoint- 
ing a  day  for  their  religious  meetings,  to  choose  Sun- 
day, from  respect  to  Christ's  resurrection." 

Such,  according  to  the  younger  Ballou,  was  the  ori- 
gin of  our  present  Sabbath.  The  sacredness  of  the  day- 
is  thus  entirely  taken  away,  and  the  day  itself  brought 


288  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Merely  a  festival.  Nothing  more  than  a  custom. 

down  to  a  level  with  our  Anniversary  of  the  declara- 
tion of  Independence.  Sunday  is  no  more  sacred  than 
the  Fourth  of  July  !  Hear  him  : — "  In  selecting  Sun- 
day for  the  public  services  of  the  sanctuary,  we  but  fol- 
low the  same  general  principle  on  which  our  citizens 
commemorate  the  landing  of  the  pilgrim-fathers,  or  the 
birth  of  American  Independence!"  (p.  54.) 

Let  these  sentiments  prevail — as  they  will  wherever 
Universalism  prospers,  and  as  they  have  already  exten- 
sively prevailed  in  Germany, — and  our  Sabbaths  will 
not  be  at  length  as  much  respected  as  our  Thanksgiv- 
ing-days. As  it  is,  Universalist  preachers  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  travel  on  Sunday,  whenever  it  suits  their  con- 
venience. Yet  they  find  it  necessary,  at  times,  to  apo- 
logize for  such  conduct.  "  I  regretted  the  necessity," 
says  Mr.  Skinner,  ('  Mag.  &  Adv.'  VIII.  102,)  "  of  tra- 
veling on  Sunday  ;  for  I  always  endeavor  to  avoid  that, 
where  praticable.  I  consider  the  custom  of  setting 
apart  one  day  in  seven,  for  rest  and  for  purposes  of  re- 
ligious worship  and  moral  instruction,  as  founded  in  wis- 
dom, sanctioned  by  reason,  and  approved  by  every  true 
religionist  and  philanthropist.  Nevertheless,  the  Sab- 
bath was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath.  It 
is  lawful  to  do  good  on  Sunday,  but  it  is  not  lawful  to  do 
evil,  either  on  that,  or  any  other,  day.  Moreover,  I 
was  encouraged  by  the  prospect  of  being  able  to  reach 
New  York  in  season  to  attend  public  worship  in  the 


evening." 


Here  is  no  recognition  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
Sabbath.     It  is  only  the  creature  of"  custom."     And  a 


CHRISTIANS   HAVE    NO   SABBATH.  289 

Sunday -traveling.  Sunday  not  pacrcd. 

man  may,  if  he  please,  do  anything  on  that  day,  which 
is  not  unlawful  on  any  other  day.  So  that  Mr.  Skinner 
could  take  a  steamboat  at  Verplanck's  landing  on  the 
Hudson,  at  11  A.  M.,  and  spend  the  remainder  of  the 
day  until  sunset  in  reaching  the  city.  If  it  suits  them, 
they  can  set  out  on  a  journey  as  well  on  Sunday,  as  on 
any  other  day.  In  the  '  Universalist  Union,'  (IV.  223,) 
Mr.  Le  Fevre  publishes,  beforehand,  his  intention  to 
leave  the  city  for  Rochester,  "  on  Sunday, — by  the  eve- 
ning boat." 

There  is,  however,  but  little  said  about  the  Sabbath 
in  any  of  their  publications.  Now  and  then  we  find  a 
recommendation  of  its  observance,  but  only,  except  in 
a  rare  instance,  as  a  good  thing,  a  very  useful  institu- 
tion ;  not  as  demanded  by  divine  authority.  Thus  Mr. 
Whittemore  says,  (<  Plain  Guide,'  p.  315,)  "  The  Chris- 
tian Sabbath  is  too  good  an  institution  to  be  neglected 
and  misspent  by  those  who  might  otherwise  be  impro- 
ving themselves  in  Christian  knowledge  and  grace." 
It  is  "  good,"  but  not  sacred. 

A  writer  in  the  *  Gospel  Anchor,'  (II.  325,)  observes, 
"  To  the  Christian  philanthropist,  and  to  the  moralist, 
a  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath  will  ever  be  an 
object  worthy  of  approbation."  "  The  expediency  of 
resting  on  the  seventh  day  does  not  appear  to  be  so 
imperative,  or  so  generally  acknowledged,"  as  to  labor 
six  days.  Of  course,  he  refers  here  to  Universalists. 
For  the  orthodox  not  only  admit  the  expediency,  but 
the  positive  obligation  to  obey  the  divine  command. 
The  writer  proceeds  to  give  several  reasons  "  for  the 
25 


290  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

A  day  for  gaiety.  Church-ordinances. 

observance  of  the  Sabbath,"  such  as  the  promotion  of 
bodily  health,  grateful  feelings,  social  affections,  and 
wordly  prosperity ;  but  not  one  word  about  its  divine 
authority,  which  would  have  been  the  best  reason  of  all. 

The  only  exception  to  these  remarks  that  I  have 
found,  is  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Skinner,  of  Boston,  who 
has  advanced  some  sentiments  which  meet  with  but 
little  favor  among  his  brethren,  in  relation  to  the 
divine  appointment  of  the  Christian  Sabbath.  And 
even  he  is  much  afraid  of  having  it  observed  in  such  a 
way  (p.  340,)  as  would  "  make  the  day  unsocial  and 
gloomy,"  and  keep  up  "  the  austerity  and  sadness  of 
former  times."  He  has  evidently  no  fondness  for  such 
a  Sabbath  as  the  Pilgrim-fathers  of  former  times  de- 
lighted to  observe.  Were  these  men  the  only  guardi- 
ans of  this  blessed  institution,  it  would  soon,  with  all 
its  hallowed  influences,  be  stript  of  its  sacredness,  and 
made  as  common  as  any  other  day  in  the  week.  Even 
now,  in  Universalist  families  generally,  and  especially 
among  the  more  wealthy,  it  is  the  gayest  of  the  seven. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  ascertain  in  what  manner 
other  Christian  institutions  are  regarded.  What  do 
they  think  of  Baptism  ?  Is  it  a  Christian  ordinance  or 
not  ?  How  do  they  regard  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Is  it 
binding  on  the  followers  of  Christ,  or  not  ?  To  these 
questions  they  reply, — 

XXV.  CHURCH-ORDINANCES  ARE  OF  DOUBTFUL  UTILITY. 
BAPTISM  has,  every  where,  and  at  all  times,  among 
Christians,  been  regarded  as  the  door  to  the  visible 


BAPTISM   NOT   BINDING.  291 

Baptism  useless.  All  cercmoniess  discarded. 

church,  and  as  indispensable  to  membership  in  the 
household  of  faith.  But  our  Universalists,  even  in  this 
respect,  beg  leave  to  differ  from  nearly  all  the  Chris- 
tian world.  They  consider  its  observance  as  a  very 
indifferent  matter.  Then:  ministers  will  baptize  both 
parents  and  their  children,  if  it  is  desired ;  but,  in  case 
of  objection  to  the  administration  of  the  rite,  they  treat 
it  as  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence. 

"  Baptism"  says  the  author  of  the  '  Universalist 
Manual,'  (pp.  114,  115,)  "  was  not,  even  in  the  days 
of  the  Apostles,  regarded  as  an  indispensable  requisite 
of  Christian  faith  and  practice."  "  But,  if  Baptism  was 
not  strictly  necessary  and  obligatory  in  the  times  of 
the  apostles,  it  has  not  been  so  since,  and  is  not  so  now." 
"  If  the  original  design  of  Baptism  was  the  public 
avowal  of  the  Christian  faith,  its  necessity  and  use 
would  seem  to  have  nearly  or  quite  ceased,  where  Chris- 
tianity is  the  known  and  general  profession  of  the  re- 
ligious community." 

The  author  of  this  '  Manual '  would  not  have  felt 
warranted  in  making  such  assertions  in  a  book  design- 
ed as  a  '  Prayer-book '  for  the  denomination,  had  he 
not  known  that  they  would  be  well  received  by  the 
order.  He  is  borne  out,  moreover,  in  these  statements, 
by  Mr.  Grosh,  who  gives  his  opinion  in  the  *  Magazine 
and  Advocate ;'  (III.  268,  9.)  "  Having  satisfied  our 
mind,"  he  remarks,  "  respecting  all  ceremonies,  we  care 
but  little  about  them,  and  have  avoided  controversy  on 
the  subject,  not  believing  them  worthy  of  it,  and  deem- 
ing the  effects  of  such  controversies  worse  than  the  per- 


292  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT    IS. 

An  initiatory  rite  only.  Of  no  meaning  now. 

formance  or  non-performance  of  the  ceremonies  can  be. 
But  having  frequently  been  asked  our  views  on  the 
subject  of  Baptism,  we  will  now  briefly  state  our 
views  on  the  subject." 

He  then  proceeds  to  state,  that,  as  an  initiatory  ordi- 
nance, it  may  have  been  enjoined  on  the  Jews,  "  but 
after  they  had  been  initiated,  the  rite  could  be  of  no 
use  to  them  or  their  descendants,  because  it  is  merely 
a  rite  of  initiation."  He  thinks  it,  therefore,  evident, 
that,  in  the  case  of  "  one  brought  up  in  a  knowledge 
of  Christianity,"  "  baptism  is  of  no  meaning ;"  and 
further,  "  to  descendants  from  Jewish  Christians,  bap- 
tism is  no  longer  of  meaning,  use,  or  binding  force. 
But  to  Gentiles,  we  believe  that  baptism  never  was  of 
use,  meaning,  or  binding  force."  Compare,  now,  with 
his  statement,  our  Savior's  own  words,  in  Mark  xvi. 
15,  16 :  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature  ;  he  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned."  If  this  is  not  a  command  to  baptize  "  every 
creature,"  in  "  all  the  world,"  that  should  believe,  these 
words  have  no  meaning.  But  this  passage  Mr.  G. 
does  not  notice. 

His  conclusion  is,  that  "  water-baptism  ceases  to  be 
binding,  if  it  ever  was  so,  on  either  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
to  all  who  are  reared  up  in  a  knowledge  of  the  only 
creed  of  primitive  and  uncorrupted  Christianity — that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ — the  sent  of  God — the  Savior  of 
the  world.  If  Pagans,  Mahommedans,  or  Jews,  were 
now  converted  to  Christianity,  it  might  with  some 


BAPTISM    NOT    BINDING.  293 

No  plausible  ground  for  it.  Never  made  a  test. 

plausibility  be  urged,  that  they  should  be  baptized 
with  water — born  of  water — *  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  ;'  but  on  no  grounds,  that  are  at  all  plausible,  in 
our  view,  could  it  be  urged  that  water-baptism  is  bind- 
ing on  any  other  persons,  or  in  any  other  cases" 

He  tells  us  also,  (p.  221,)  that  "  those  who  oppose 
outward  baptism,  as  firmly  believe  it  abolished  by  our 
Lord,  as  is  circumcision — and  it  would  be  as  wrong  to 
insist  on  their  being  baptized,  as  it  would  to  insist  on 
Baptists  not  being  baptized."  "  I  wish  my  brethren , 
every  where,  would  cease  the  practice  of  water-bap- 
tism, which  was  never  intended  for  their  observance, 
and  is  contrary  to  Christianity — but  if  they  will  con- 
tinue water-baptism  to  accommodate  *  a  spurious  con- 
science,' let  them  not  force  others  to  do  the  same." 

So  numerous  are  they  who  agree  with  Mr.  Grosh  in 
these  views  of  the  design  of  baptism,  that  they  seldom, 
if  ever,  make  it  a  test  of  church-membership.  In  "  the 
Profession  of  Faith  of  the  Universalist  church  in  Utica,' ' 
the  matter  is  thus  stated : — "  As  there  is  a  difference  of 
opinion,  (*  Mag.  and  Adv.'  III.  21,)  among  the  sincere 
followers  of  Christ,"  [Universalists,]  "  in  regard  to  this 
ordinance,  and  this  difference  ought  not  to  separate  true 
disciples  one  from  another ;  we  believe  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  one  to  follow  the  dictates  of  his  or  her  conscience, 
leaving  each  to  judge  both  of  the  subject  and  mode  of 
Baptism,  as  shall  seem  most  consistent  with  Scripture 
and  reason."  We  learn  also  that  such  is  the  custom 
of  Universalists  generally.  So  says  Mr.  Skinner ;  (pp. 
20,  21 ;)  "  Universalists  in  general,  so  far  as  we  have 
25* 


294  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  Eucharist.  Not  obligatory. 

been  acquainted  with  them,  have  been  accustomed  to 
'  think  and  let  think  ;'  and  have  never,  to  our  know- 
ledge, made  the  ordinances  alluded  to,"  [baptism,  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,]  either  a  bar  against,  or  test  of,  fel- 
lowship ;  justly  considering  them  not  as  the  fundamen- 
tals of  religion,  but  appendages  to  be  used,  or  not  used, 
according  to  the  conscience  of  each  sincere  Christian." 

Similar  are  their  views  in  regard  to  the  observance 
of  the  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

The c  Universalist  Manual'  observes,  (pp.  102,  '3,  '4,) 
that  "  there  are  some  varieties  of  opinion  in  the  denom- 
ination of  Universalists  in  relation  to  this  Christian  in- 
stitution called  the  Lord's  Supper.  Some  consider  the 
observance  and  the  due  celebration  of  it,  to  be  equally 
binding  upon  Christians  in  all  ages  of  the  Christian 
church ;  whilst  others  think  its  obligation  was  only  tempo- 
rary." "  There  are  many  of  our  ministering  brethren,  and 
others,  who,  although  they  do  not  consider  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  communion,  strictly  obligatory  on  Christians 
at  present,  are  yet  in  favor  of  its  regular  observance  ; 
believing  it  expedient,  and  calculated  to  be  useful  as  a 
means  of  edification."  "  It  is  on  the  same  ground, 
namely,  of  expediency  and  utility,  that  I  would  choose 
to  place  the  present  and  continued  observance  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

Some  of  their  preachers  openly  declare,  that  the  au- 
thorized observance  of  the  rite  ceased  with  the  Jewish 
dispensation.  Mr.  Rogers  says,  ('  Mag.  and  Adv.'  VII. 
5,)  "  We  know  that  the  coming  of  Christ  to  close  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  annulled  the  obligation  of  the  eucha- 


295 

Of  doubtful  utility.  Of  but  slight  consequence. 

rite."  He  thinks, however,  that  it  may  even  now 
be  useful.  "  If  I  am  persuaded  of  its  utility,  (and  I  am, 
decidedly,)  I  will,  for  the  utility's  sake,  encourage  its 
continued  observance."  To  which  Mr.  Grosh  replies, 
— "  Br.  Rogers'  rule  of  action,  as  I  understand  him,  is 
a  good  one.  Acting  on  it,  and  believing  the  observance 
of  the  eucharist  of  very  doubtful  utility,  I  cannot  observe 
it"  He  says,  (III.  221,)  "  we  have  never  tried  to 
convince  our  readers,  that  the  institutions  of  water-bap- 
tism, and  the  eucharist,  are  not  now  binding  on  any 
people — nor  have  been  since  the  second  coming  of  Je- 
sus, 1700  years  ago,  as  we,  firmly  believe" 

"  With  respect  to  the  communion  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, we  may  be  told,"  says  H.  Ballou,  jr.  ('  Plain  Guide,' 
p.  326,)  "  that  it  is  questionable,  whether  this  institu- 
tion was  intended  as  an  absolute  ordinance,  that  is,  as 
perpetually  and  universally  obligatory  by  force  of  a 
positive  command.  We  think  so  too.  We  have 
doubts  of  the  existence  of  ordinances  in  Christianity  j 
we  m-  in,  in  the  usual  technical  sense  of  the  term." 

Those  among  them,  who  believe  that  the  observance 
should  be  continued,  as  enjoined  by  the  Savior  on  all 
his  disciples  in  every  age,  as  is  the  case  with  the  two 
Messrs.  Skinner,  Messrs.  Whittemore,  Balfour  and 
some  others, — are  yet  very  indulgent  to  their  brethren 
who  differ  from  them.  "  We  know  many  estimable 
and  worthy  Christians,"  says  the  elder  Skinner,  ('  Mag. 
and  Adv.'  III.  21,)  "  both  Universalists  and  Limitarians, 
who  do  not  view  this  subject  in  the  same  light  that  we 
do.  Nor  do  we  esteem  them  any  the  less  on  that  ac- 


296  UNIVERSALTSM  AS  IT  IS. 

Every  man  his  own  master.  Churches  few  in  number. 

count"  In  other  words,  it  is  a  very  small  matter, 
whether  they  observe  the  ordinance  or  not,  they  are 
just  as  good  Christians,  just  as  worthy  of  esteem,  as 
though  they  did  !  "  It  is  the  spirit  of  Universalism 
(p.  22,)  to  allow  every  sincere  believer  in  Christ  to  think 
and  practice  as  conscience  shall  dictate."  To  such,  it 
seems,  there  is  no  law — no  rule :  the.  command  of 
Christ  may  be  utterly  disregarded,  simply  because  a 
man  takes  it  into  his  head,  not  to  believe  that  it  is  a 
command. 

That  the  number  of  Universalists,  who  believe  either 
in  the  authority,  expediency,  or  utility,  of  the  eucharist, 
is  small,  appears  by  their  own  confessions.  They  ad- 
mit that  their  churches  are  few  in  number.  Of  societies 
they  boast  many.  But  a  society  is  not  a  church, 
though  many  of  them  endeavor  to  think  so.  "  There 
was,  it  is  said,  ('  Exp.'  IV.  216,)  but  one  body,  original- 
ly, in  the  Christian  community — that  is,  the  church  ; 
and  why,  it  is  asked,  should  we  have  more  than  one 
body  now — that  is,  the  society,  or  congregation  ?" 
These  societies  are  made  up  of  all  sorts  of  persons,  save 
the  rigidly  and  devout  orthodox.  The  younger  Ballou 
says,  as  quoted  in  the  '  Plain  Guide,'  (p.  325,)  that "  in 
New  England,  and,  we  believe,  in  most  other  places," 
"  the  society  is  gathered  indiscriminately,"  and  "  consists 
of  all  who  choose  to  belong  to  it,  from  whatever  mo- 
tive, or  to  share  in  the  pecuniary  burdens  or  profits  of 
building,"  &c.  Societies  thus  composed  would  very 
naturally  be  opposed  to  an  "  imperium  in  imperio" — a 
church-government  distinct  from  a  society-government. 


CHURCHES   NOT   POPULAR.  297 

All  ordinances  now  uaeles*.  Dev  otional  tendencies. 

"  Some  object  to  churches,"  says  Mr.  Balfour,  (<  Exp.' 
II.  35,)  "  beause  they  make  a  separation  in  the  socie- 
ty." "  Some  also  object  to  churches,  because  their  es- 
tablishment would  drive  away  from  the  societies  the 
richest  men,  who  are  the  chief  supporters  of  preaching." 
And  "  some  (p.  36,)  object  to  churches  as  unscriptural. 
Few,  if  any,  would  boldly  affirm  that  churches  never 
were  scriptural  institutions ;  but  it  is  alleged,  that  they, 
with  the  Lord's  Day,  Lord's  Supper,  yea,  all  Christian 
ordinances  are  now  useless  ;  or,  if  attended  to,  are  mere 
matters  of  expediency" 

For  these,  and  other  reasons,  Universalists,  for  the 
most  part,  are  unwilling  to  establish  churches  distinct 
from,  and  within  their  societies.  Of  "  many"  of  the 
sect,  Mr.  Balfour  remarks,  ('  Exp.'  II.  50,}—"  A  large 
meeting-house  and  a  popular  preacher  are  matters  of 
far  more  concern  to  them,  than  having  a  church  among 
them,  obeying  the  commandments  of  Jesus  Christ" 
"  Is  it  not  a  fact,  (p.  54,)  that  hundreds  of  them  can 
live — their  whole  life-time,  neighbors  to  each  other, 
yet  pay  no  attention  to  churches  and  the  observance  of 
Christ's  ordinances  ?  Is  this  like  Christians  1  Is  it 
not  more  like  heathens,  persons  who  do  not  believe  the 
gospel,  or  regard  Christ's  authority  ?"  We  have,  here, 
a  beautiful  comment  on  the  devotional  tendencies  of  Uni- 
versalism,  of  which  we  shall  see  more  presently.  Well 
might  Mr.  Balfour  say,  (p.  33,) — u  Our  enemies  have  re- 
proached us  with  neglect  of  churches  and  church-ordinan- 
ces :  and  too  much  occasion  has  been  given  them  for  it. 
Churches  have  indeed  existed  in  many  places  among 


298  UNIVERSALISM   AS    IT    IS. 

Neglect  of  churches.  Not  a  test  of  standing. 

Universalists,  but  not  so  generally  as  they  ought." 
"  The  neglect  of  churches  seems  now  to  be  perceived, 
and  the  evils,  resulting  from  it,  to  be  felt."  Again,  (p. 
36,)  "  If  churches  are  scriptural  institutions,  Universal- 
ists have  too  long  neglected  God's  authority  about 
them.  This  neglect,  in  many  instances  at  least,  has 
arisen,  not  so  much  from  want  of  proper  persons  to  com- 
pose churches  among  them,  as  from  want  of  attention  to 
the  Scriptures." 

The  extent  of  this  neglect  maybe  inferred  from  what 
Hosea  Ballou,  jr.,  says;  ('  Plain  Guide,'  p.  325,) 
"  Now,  it  is  an  ominous  fact,  that  in  a  very  large  pro- 
portion of  our  societies,  probably  in  more  than  two- 
thirds  of  our  eight  or  nine  hundred,  there  are  no  church- 
es, no  associations  of  the  kind  whatsoever  !" 

Of  course,  by  all  these  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  neglected.  I  cannot  find,  that  it  is  adminis- 
tered, except  where  churches  have  been  organized. 
And  even  where  there  are  churches,  but  a  small  part  of 
the  society  belong  to  them,  (though  the  terms  of  ad- 
mission are  very  simple,)  or  come  to  the  table.  And 
in  the  case  of  church-members,  not  all  these  regard  it 
as  a  duty  to  attend  the  communion.  It  is  sometimes 
expressly  provided,  as  in  the  case  of  a  Universalist 
church  in  this  city,  that  "  a  participation  in  the  ordi- 
nances shall  not  be  considered  necessary  to  constitute 
church-membership."  And  Mr.  D.  Skinner  testifies, 
as  we  have  seen  above,  that  "  Universalists  in  general 
have  never  made  the  ordinances  either  a  bar  against, 
or  test  of,  fellowship." 


NO  TESTS  OF   FELLOWSHIP.  299 

Diflcipliuc  deprecated.  The  middle  wall  broken  ., 

Such  tests  would  be  most  firmly  resisted  by  the  most 
of  them.  They  cannot  endure  it,  that  such  invidious 
distinctions  should  be  made  in  the  societies.  In  relation 
to  a  plan  started  a  few  years  since,  "  of  forming  so- 
cieties under  church-government  and  discipline,"  Mr. 
Grosh  says,  (<  Mag.  and  Adv.'  III.  14,)—"  If  the  ordi- 
nances are  to  be  made  in  the  least  degree  obligatory, 
either  by  moral  or  disciplinary  influence,  on  persons  be- 
coming members  of  the  societies,  it  would  be  calcu- 
lated to  prevent  many  from  becoming  members — we 
allude  to  those  who  are  conscientiously,  or  from  prin- 
ciples of  propriety  and  policy,  opposed  to  forms  and 
ceremonies.  Such  distinctive  measures  we  hope  will 
never  be  introduced  among  our  brethren." 

"  We  regret,"  says  Mr.  Whittemore,  ('  Plain  Guide,' 
p.  332,)  "  the  present  distinction  of  Christians  into  two 
parties,  the  church  and  the  congregation  ;  and  we  re- 
commend a  measure  which  will  abolish  the  distinction. 
Let  all  Christian  believers  join  the  visible  church. 
This  act  is  saying  to  the  world, '  I  believe  in  Christ, — 
I  am  willing  to  have  it  known, — I  am  not  ashamed  of 
ray  Lord, — I  love  the  fellowship  of  his  disciples, — and 
I  respect  his  ordinances.'  If  this  recommendation 
should  be  followed,  the  wall  of  separation  between  the 
Christian  church  and  the  Christian  congregation  would 
be  thrown  down  ;  and  of  the  twain  there  would  be  one 
flesh.  All  then,  (excepting  children  not  arrived  to 
years  of  sufficient  judgment,)  would  join  the  celebration, 
as  they  certainly  should.  It  is  too  often  the  case  now, 
that  when  the  Supper  is  administer z&,  five-sixths  of  the 


300  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Eucharist  but  little  thought  of.  The  antipodes  of  the.oi  thodox. 

Christians  present,  and  sometimes  more,  rise  and  leave 
the  house,  as  though  they  had  of  right  no  part  nor  lot 
in  the  matter  whatsoever.  '  These  things  ought  not  so 
to  be.'  It  is  radically  wrong,  and  the  practice  ought  to 
be  changed  as  speedily  as  possible.  It  is  wrong  in  it- 
self, as  well  as  wounding  to  the  feelings  of  the  officia- 
ting clergyman,  and  to  the  members  who  remain,  thus 
to  be  forsaken,  as  it  were,  by  their  brethren." 

We  have,  in  this  extract,  a  very  plain  confession  of 
the  slight  hold,  which  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per has  even  on  those  congregations  where  churches 
are  established  ;  and  an  urgent  appeal  to  all  the  con- 
gregations, writhno  further  change  than  that  of  practice 
in  this  particular,  to  adopt  the  name  of  a  church  ;  for 
they  are  all  spoken  of  as  "  brethren ;"  and  Mr.  W. 
does  not  believe  in  what  we  call  a  change  of  heart : — 
"  As  to  a  radical  change  of  nature,"  he  remarks,  (p. 
331,)  "  it  is  impossible  in  itself,  and  cannot,  therefore, 
be  regarded  as  a  qualification."  "  The  only  qualifi- 
cation, (p.  332,)  required  by  the  primitive  disciples, 
was  a  rational  and  practical  faith  in  Jesus,  as  the  Son 
of  God  and  the  Savior  of  the  world." 

Such  are  the  devotional  tendencies  of  this  "  purer 
faith."  Such  is  the  manner  in  which  Christian  Insti- 
tutions are  regarded.  Some  believe  in  them,  at  least 
for  form's  sake,  and  some  care  nothing  about  them ; 
and  these  last  are  by  far  the  majority  ;  while  some  are 
decidedly  opposed  to  them.  Now  as  all  the  tendencies 
of  this  sect  are  antipodal  to  the  orthodox,  as  they  ap- 
pear to  strive  to  have  but  little,  either  in  faith  or 


NO  TESTS  OF    FELLOWSHIP.  301 

What  tliey  will  yet  become. 

practice,  in  common  with  others,  it  cannot  be  regarded 
as  doubtful  what  they  will  at  length  become,  in  respect 
to  the  ordinances.  The  day  is  not  far  distant,  when 
notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  a  few  among  them, 
the  ordinances  will  be  almost  or  quite  unknown.  If 
none  but  themselves  were  left  in  charge  of  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Sabbath,  Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
how  long  would  it  be  before  the  very  remembrance  of 
such  antiquated  customs  would  cease  from  among  men  ? 
Thank  God,  all  are  not  such. 


•26 


CHAPTER    XXIII. 

FRUITS     OF     UNIVERSALISM. 

Moral  efficacy — Fruits  of  Orthodoxy — Ministry  of  Christ  and 
Paul — Such  should  be  its  fruits  if  true — Their  own  conces- 
sions— Want  of  piety — No  public  measures  of  usefulness — 
Dark  prospects — Relish  for  piety  not  common — Disguised 
Infidels — Character  of  leaders — Ropes  of  sand — A  lifeless 
theory — Sleepy  Congregations — Hirelings  poorly  paid — 
Prayer-meetings  rare— Disastrous  tendencies — Hypocrites — 
A  good  description — Mr.  Balfour's  forebodings  and  experi- 
ence— Philadelphia — New  York — No  memorials  of  good 
done — Affinity  with  infidelity — No  secret,  nor  family-prayer 
— Too  great  a  risk. 

11  From  thoughts  so  dreadful  and  profane, 

Corrupt  discourse  proceeds ; 
And  in  their  impious  hands  are  found 

Abominable  deeds?." — WATTS. 

IN  our  inquiry  concerning  the  fruits  of  this  system, 
it  has  been  ascertained  that  one  of  the  results  of  the 
general  adoption  of  this  scheme  of  doctrines  would  be 
the  prostration  of  every  institution  peculiar  to  Chris- 
tianity. The  very  bulwarks  of  religion,  being  thus 
overthrown,  what  is  to  hinder  a  general  depravation  of 
morals,  such  as  is  the  case  wherever  the  Sabbath  is  un- 
known, and  the  ordinances  of  Christianity  are  disre- 
garded, or  held  in  contempt. 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  303 

Moral  efficacy.  What  it  should  be 

It  becomes,  therefore,  a  very  important  inquiry, — 
What  is  the  MORAL  efficacy  of  Modern  Universalism  ? 
Under  the  preaching  of  what  is  called  orthodoxy,  we 
are  accustomed  to  witness  remarkable  reformations  of 
life,  and  transformations  of  character,  directly  traceable 
to  the  influence  of  these  doctrines.  No  orthodox 
preacher  can  be  content  without  such  testimonies  to  his 
faithfulness  as  an  ambassador  of  Christ.  Such  unques- 
tionably were  the  results  of  our  Savior's  preaching,  of 
the  ministry  of  the  apostles,  and  also  of  their  coadju- 
tors and  successors.  To  the  Corinthians  Paul  writes — 
(1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10,  11,)  "  Be  not  deceived ;  neither  for- 
nicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  adulterers,  nor  effeminate, 
nor  abusers  of  themselves  with  mankind,  nor  thieves, 
nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers,  nor  extortion- 
ers, shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  such  were 
some  of  you.  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified, 
but  ye  are  justified,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
by  the  Spirit  of  our  God." 

Paul's  preaching  produced,  or  was  followed  by,  such 
remarkable  conversions.  If  Universalism  is  the  very 
doctrine  preached  by  the  Apostle,  we  may  certainly 
look  for  similar  results  to  follow  its  faithful  promulga- 
tion. Yea,  we  may  expect  that  in  this  respect  it  will 
exceed  every  other  creed  ;  that  it  will  number  among 
its  adherents,  those,  in  considerable  numbers,  who, 
having  been  fornicators,  adulterers,  thieves,  and  drunk- 
ards, have,  by  the  mere  influence  of  its  peculiar  doc- 
trines, become  entirely  changed  in  all  these  respects. 
Let  us  then  proceed  to  the  investigation,  "  Ye  shall 


304  UN1VERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Faith  does  not  improve  public  morals.    No  public  measures  of  benevolence. 

know  them  by  their  fruits.  Do  men  gather  grapes  of 
thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles  ?" 

I  shall  continue  to  avail  myself  of  their  own  state- 
ments and  confessions,  well  knowing  that  in  nothing 
are  men  more  liable  to  prejudice,  than  in  judging  of 
the  conduct  of  others.  The  following  remarks  from 
the  '  Magazine  and  Advocate,'  (VIII.  4,  5,)  may 
throw  some  light  on  this  matter.  "  I  aver,"  says  Mr. 
Rogers,  ("  that  laborious  and  distinguished  defender  of 
Universalism,  who  has  traveled  more  than  any  preach- 
er in  the  denomination,"  see  ( Trumpet,'  XIII.  122.) 
"  that  the  mere  extension  of  our  faith — will  not,  to  any 
great  degree,  improve  public  morals. — Its  bearing  upon 
morals  will  be  scarcely  perceptible,  except  something 
more  is  done.  Is  this  denied  ?  Why,  then,  do  we 
find  so  many  who  entertain  a  firm  faith  in  our  dcctrines, 
and  are  not  perceptibly  influenced  in  their  general  prac- 
tice by  that  faith  ?"  This  is  not  the  language  of  an 
enemy,  but  of  one  of  their  own  preachers.  It  is  an 
undesigned  confession  of  the  impotence  of  the  system. 

Again  he  asks, — "  As  a  Christian  body  are  we  not 
too  indifferent  to  experimental  piety  ?  Does  not  our 
horror  of  fanaticism  carry  us  too  far  into  the  other  ex- 
treme ?  Our  love  to  God  ;  is  it  not  too  closely  allied 
to  a  mere  abstract  and  philosophical  admiration  ?" 
Appealing  to  his  brethren  he  adds, — "  Do  we  not  want 
to  be  useful  1  What  are  we  doing  toward  this  object  ? 
What  public  measures  have  we  taken  to  this  end  ?  I 
do  aver  that  it  is  high  time  that  our  principles  were 
more  palpably  visible  in  their  bearings  on  the  moral  in- 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  305 

Fearful  apprehensions.  Relish  for  piety  not  common. 

terests  of  society."  This  language  speaks  volumes  in  re- 
gard to  the"  palpably  visible"  results  of  this  new  scheme. 

Mr.  Rogers  stands  not  alone.  The  fact  is  apparent 
to  the  most  of  them.  Many  of  them  are  sick  at  heart 
with  their  own  adherents,  disgusted  at  their  utter  in- 
difference to  all  but  doctrinal  preaching,  and  exceed- 
ingly apprehensive  that  the  days  of  the  sect  are  num- 
bered. Mr.  Balfour's  concessions,  considering  that  he 
is  one  of  their  main  pillars,  are  to  be  regarded  as  of 
great  importance.  "  Whether  Universalism,"  he  re- 
marks, ( '  Exp.'  II.  32,)  "  shall  go  on  prospering  as  it 
has  done,  depends  in  a  good  degree,  on  Universalists 
themselves.  Unless  they  give  heed  to  their  ways,  and 
follow  God's  directions,  as  given  in  the  Bible,  they  need 
not  expect  increasing  prosperity."  And  yet  no  man 
among  them  has  done  so  much  to  sap  their  confidence 
in  "  God's  directions  as  given  in  the  Bible." 

Again  of  those  in  other  churches  who  believe  in  Uni- 
versalism, but  join  not  the  sect,  he  says,  (p.  33,)-^'  It 
will  be  time  enough  to  blame  them,  when  churches  are 
established,  and  a  relish  for  personal  piety  and  devotion 
BECOMES  COMMON  among  us.  The  many  merely  nominal 
Universalists,  in  some  places,  must  give  a  revolting 
view  of  Universalism  to  many  sensible  piously-minded 
people.  They  judge  of  the  whole  by  the  specimen  be- 
fore them,  and  conclude  we  are  only  disguised  infidels.'* 
Nor  has  Mr.  Balfour  judged  wrong.  Such  men,  as  he 
here  denounces,  we  do  see,  and  in  considerable  num- 
bers, flocking  to  hear  Universalist  preachers,  and  glory- 
ing in  their  doctrines ;  and  the  view  is  revolting ; 
26* 


306  UNIVERSALISM   AS  IT  IS. 

Infidel  leaders.  Dissolution  of  societies  frequent. 

leading  us  to  conclude,  (with  how  much  reason  let  this 
exposition  show,)  that  they  are  "  only  disguised  in- 
fidels." 

Alluding  to  the  "  rich  profane  swearer,  drunkard, 
and  semi-infidel,"  he  says,  (p.  36,) — "  It  is  seeing  such, 
in  some  cases,  the  leader  sand  man  agcrs  in  our  societies, 
which  makes  Universalism  a  hissing  and  a  by-word  in 
some  places,  and  prevents  many  persons  from  uniting 
with  us."  "  A  large  meeting-house  (p.  50,)  and  a 
popular  preacher  are  matters  of  far  more  concern  to 
them  [many  Universalists,]  than  having  a  church  among 
them,  obeying  the  commandments  of  Jesus  Christ." 
How  little  regard  can  they,  then,  have  to  the  authority 
of  the  Savior ! 

What  wonder  can  it  be  that  such  societies  should 
soon  crumble  and  cease,  when  they  have,  confessedly, 
so  little  regard  for  Christ ?  "I  may  add  another  fact," 
says  Mr.  B.  (p.  34,)  "  which  makes  the  hearts  of  many 
Universalists  sad, — They  see  numerous  Universalist  so- 
cieties formed,  and  meeting-houses  built ;  but  what  is 
the  result  ?  After  a  few  years,  some  meeting-houses 
are  sold,  or  shut  up.  In  some  others  they  have  only 
occasional  preaching.  And  some  societies,  after  a  lin- 
gering consumption,  die,  and  the  place  which  once 
knew  them,  knows  them  no  more.  Like  ropes  of  sand 
they  have  fallen  to  pieces,  and  hardly  a  fragment  of 
them  remains."  Such  examples,  as  every  reader  must 
know,  are  by  no  means  rare.  But  it  is  not  always 
that  the  fact  is  so  plainly  confessed.  How  wonderful 
must  be  the  vitality  of  such  a  system  ! 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  307 

Mure  theory  than  practice.  A  Univers.ilist  congregation. 

Even  the  wily  Mr.  Whittemore,  who,  on  one  page 
can  say, — "  It  is  but  seldom,  (<  Plain  Guide,'  p.  282,) 
that  we  now  hear  the  objection  urged  against  Univer- 
salism,  which  was  formerly  urged  with  frequency  and 
confidence,  that  it  had  a  licentious  influence  on  those 
who  believed  it," — on  the  very  next  page  is  constrained 
to  remark, — "  The  morals  of  the  Universalist  would, 
and  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  be  purer  than 
the  morals  of  those  operated  upon  by  different  opinions, 
were  it  not  that  he  makes  his  religion  too  much  a 
thing  of  theory,  and  too  little  a  thing  of  practice.  This 
is  the  fault  of  many  Universal ists."  He  thinks  that 
they  ought  to  be  the  most  moral,  but  where  are  the 
facts  to  confirm  his  theory  ? — where  ?  He  cannot  but 
be  sensible  that  as  a  sect  they  are  very  deficient  in  even 
the  appearance  of  piety.  Therefore  he  says,  (p.  293,) 
— "  If  there  be  any  one  thing  which  particularly  con- 
cerns the  substantial  interests  of  the  Universalist  deno- 
mination, it  is  information  of  Vital  Godliness"  Well 
may  he  say — 'formation  ;'  for  such  a  thing,  in  such  a 
place,  may  well  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  new  creation. 

The  following  from  the  same  pen,  (p.  307,)  may  be 
regarded  as  a  very  graphic  description  of  a  large  pro- 
portion of  their  societies : — "  When  he  [the  preacher] 
goes  to  conduct  the  services  of  public  worship,  he  sees 
about  halt  ;is  many  people  as  there  are  pews,  scattered 
over  the  house,  some  below,  and  some  in  the  gallery  ; 
no  singers,  so  that  the  joyful  part  they  perform  must 
be  omittr-d.  He  begins  with  a  prayer,  but  there  is  no 
feeling  ;  he  knows  not  what  to  say  ;  he  labors  through 


308 


UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 


A  scene  from  nature.  Poor  pay  of  their  itinerants. 

it,  and  it  seems  to  every  one  a  long,  dull,  and  unsuitable 
one.  He  announces  his  text,  and  endeavors  to  preach, 
but  it  is  lifeless  reading  after  all.  His  congregation 
have  fixed  themselves  in  a  situation  to  suffer  the  least 
torture  ;  if  in  summer,  they  sleep  and  nod  ;  if  in  winter, 
they  bury  themselves  in  their  cloaks,  and  go  into  a  tor- 
pid state."  Here  is  a  picture  evidently  drawn  from 
nature.  Both  Mr.  W.  and  his  brethren  are  too  familiar 
with  such  scenes  not  to  know  how  to  sketch  them. 
But  what  an  animating  doctrine  it  must  be  to  produce 
such  affecting  interest ! 

"  A  wise  observer,"  he  tells  us,  (p.  312,)  "  has  said, 
— '  In  many  of  our  country  societies,  and  among  the 
professed  friends  to  our  doctrine,  where  no  society 
exists,  are  to  be  found  certain  narrow-minded  brethren, 
who  can  talk  much  about  the  c  glorious  gospel,' — and 
how  refreshing  it  is  to  them  to  hear  the  glad  tidings 
proclaimed ;  but  who  never  seem  to  think  that  five 
dollars  will  go  further  than  ninepence  in  the  payment 
of  a  poor  itinerant  preacher,  when  they  are  amply  able 
to  pay  the  former  sum  a  dozen  times  in  a  year !' ' 
How  Universalism  opens  the  heart,  and  prompts  to 
wondrous  deeds  of  benevolence !  "  What  tales  of  sad- 
ness," adds  Mr.  W.  (p.  313,)  "  some  of  our  poor  itine- 
rants could  tell,  who  have  traversed  hill  and  dale  with 
the  gospel-message  on  their  tongues,  for  which  they 
have  had  the  privilege  of  obtaining  about  half  enough 
to  meet  their  expenses.  I  have  heard  some  of  their  nar- 
ratives ;  and  I  always  feel,  when  I  listen  to  them,  as 
though  they  had  not  only  entered  the  kingdom  '  with 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  309 

Social  mcfling*.  Disastrous  omens. 

much  tribulation,'  but  had  found  a  good  share  of  it 
within.1'  Had  they  carried  the  true  gospel  with  them, 
they  would  have  found  that  "  the  laborer  is  worthy  of 
his  hire." 

The  absence  of  vital  godliness  among  them  may  be 
further  shown  from  their  want  of  interest  in  meetings 
of  a  merely  devotional  character.  "A  good,  social, 
meeting,"  Mr.  W.  observes,  (p.  316,  17)  "of  Christian 
friends  will  do  much  for  the  spiritual  advancement  of 
all  who  enjoy  it  Tf^ere  is  a  lamentable  indifference  on 
this  subject.  Too  much  is  thought  of  mere  minister- 
meetings  ;  as  if  no  others  could  be  tolerated."  How 
rarely  do  we  hear  of  prayer-meetings  among  our  Uni- 
versalists !  That  Universalists,  with  all  their  profes- 
sions of  love,  are  very  deficient  in  affection  to  their  re- 
ligion, appears  from  what  H.  Ballou,  jr.  says  ('  Plain 
Guide,'  p.  328 ;) — "  Most  of  the  other  sects  never  form 
a  society  without  a  church.  Has  it  not  been  observed, 
that  in  general,  (there  are  exceptions,)  they  rather  ex- 
cel us  in  strong  enduring  attachment  to  their  religion, 
and  to  their  social  institutions  ?"  "  We  have  a  deep  and 
increasing  presentiment,  that  there  must  be  a  thorough 
change  of  this  state  of  things,"  "  or  that  its  prosperity 
[the  society's]  will  not  be  permanent.  At  any  rate, 
we  cannot  conceive  of  general  neglect,  without  the 
most  disastrous  tendencies."  But  general  neglect  of 
churches  there  will  be  among  a  people  who  maintain 
that  "  all  men  are  of  the  church  ;"  and  these  disastrous 
tendencies  must  operate. 

To  the  question, — "  What  are  we   doing  ?" — Mr. 


310  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

A  faith  without  work?.  Hypocrites  abound  among  them. 

Gurley  replies,  ('Univ.  Union,'  IV.  43,)  some  are  alive 
in  the  power  and  spirit  of  the  gospel ;  but  too  many 
are  cold  and  indifferent.  There  is  a  lamentable  defi- 
ciency in  many  places  of  the  fruits  of  a  living  faith. 
Multitudes  have  a  dead  faith."  "  I  cannot,  I  confess, 
account  for  so  much  coldness,  only  on  the  ground  that 
a  religious  and  devotional  spirit  has  not  been  sufficiently 
cultivated  among  us.  Anti- endless  misery  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  Universalism ;  and  I  very  greatly 
fear  that  the  number  is  not  small  who  have  mistaken 
the  former  for  the  latter."  There  cannot,  then,  be  so 
much  Universalism  in  the  land,  as  is  pretended.  In- 
deed it  can  scarcely  be  found  at  all,  except  in  the  form 
of  anti-endless  misery  and  anti-all-future  misery.  But 
this  is  not  Universalism ! 

We  find,  too,  a  great  many  hypocrites  in  this  curious 
sect.  "  I  doubt  not,"  says  Mr.  Ackley  of  Hamilton, 
New  York,  (<  Univ.  Union,'  IV.  162,)  "  we  have  as 
many  [hypocrites,]  in  proportion  to  our  numbers,  as 
other  denominations."  "  Ts  not.  that  man  a  dissembler 
who  professes  to  believe  the  Abrahamic  faith,  and  to 
love  the  glad  tidings  of  a  world's  salvation,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  spends  the  sacred  day  at  the  tavern,  the  grog 
shop,  or  in  other  places  of  wickedness  ;  and  to  whom 
the  Lord's  day  is  a  weariness,  instead  of  delight ;  his 
holy  sanctuary  a  prison-house,  instead  of  the  very  gate 
of  heaven  to  his  soul ;  the  Bible  a  dead  letter,  instead 
of  his  only  chart  and  compass  1, — There  are  not  a  few, 
of  these  views  and  habits,  who  profess  to  be  Universa- 
lists."  Again  he  says — (p.  161,)  "  There  are  thousand? 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVEKSALISM.  311 

Whni  th»-y  \\rro  once.  And  still  are. 

who  endeavor  to  shelter  themselves  under  the  wings  of 
our  faith,  who  are  so  afraid  of  being  burned  to  death  in 
the  hot  fire  of  fanaticism,  with  which  they  are  sur- 
rounded, that  they  have  stood  aloof,  halting  between 
two  opinions,  until  they  are  now  frozen  with  the  cold 
frosts  of  criminal  neglect,  and  are  dead  weights  in  our 
cause."  This  is  a  doleful  picture,  truly,  of  a  church 
that  professes  Apostolical  purity  of  doctrine ! 

We  are  told,  (p.  166,)  that  "  a  Universalist  now  is 
something  different  from  what  was  supposed  to  be  a 
Universalist  a  few  years  since.  A  Universalist,  former- 
ly, in  the  judgment  of  the  world,  was  a  good-humored 
swearing,  laughing,  joking,  Bible-neglecting,  Sabbath- 
disregarding,  accommodating,  and  neighborly  sort  of 
being,  that  had  owned  and  lost  '  Ballou  on  Atone- 
ment,' heard  three  Universalist  sermons,  and  argued  all 
the  orthodox  out  of  all  the  bar-rooms  in  town."  The 
reader  will  be  apt  to  think  that  the  description  still 
holds  good,  especially  after  what  has  just  been  detailed 
of  the  leanness  of  the  sect. 

Even  in  Connecticut,  that  church-going  land,  they 
can  hardly  persuade  their  adherents  to  keep  up  public 
worship.  From  the  Southern  Association  of  Connecti- 
cut, we  learn,  ('  Union,5  IV.  243,)  that  "  it  is  sometimes 
the  case  that  individuals,  known  to  be  Universalists, 
seldom  attend  church  more  than  half  a  day,  and  some- 
times not  at  all.  They  seem  to  prefer  almost  any 
thing  to  religious  devotion."  And  yet  they  are  "  known 
to  be  Universalists !" 

After  such  exhibitions  of  the  emptiness  of  Universa- 


312  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Will  they  go  on  prospering  ?  Doleful  experience  of  their  preachers. 

lism,  it  may  be  well  to  introduce  the  prophetic  declara- 
tions of  Mr.  Balfour,  («  Univ.  Union,'  IV.  306,  '?,)  in 
respect  to  the  future  fortunes  of  his  adopted  people. 
To  the  question — "  Will  the  cause  of  Universalism  go 
on  to  prosper  in  time  to  come,  as  it  has  in  times  past  ?" 
— he  replies  very  doubtingly.  He  questions  much 
whether  the  "  means"  will  "  be  continued  and  in- 
creased in  the  time  to  come."  The  "  means"  are 
preachers,  books,  and  periodicals.  But  "  will  men  en- 
ter into  the  ministry  equal  to  the  increased  demand  for 
them,  as  in  time  past  ?  We  must  doubt  this,  unless  a 
radical  change  takes  place.  Few  men  of  talents,  un- 
less mere  loiterers,  will  seriously  engage  in  the  work 
until  they  see  more  love  and  zeal  among  Universalists 
to  provide  for  them  and  their  families.  They  see  many 
of  their  present  preachers  spending  their  time  and 
strength  in  the  work,  in  poverty  and  comparative 
misery ,  and  die  probably  in  debt,  with  a  wife  and  fa- 
mily to  mourn  their  loss."  "  They,"  [the  preachers  of 
some  societies,]  "  drag  out  for  a  year  or  two,  a  misera- 
ble existence  as  preachers  in  a  place,  leave  it  probably 
in  debt,  hoping  to  find  some  other  place,  where  Uni- 
versalists have  more  common  sense,  if  not  more  of  true 
Christianity  among  "them."  "  Until  this  shameful  evil 
is  removed,  let  us  be  more  sparing  of  our  boasting 
about  the  rapid  progress  ot  Universalism."  "  Let 
preachers'  love  and  zeal  for  the  cause  of  Universalism 
be  what  you  please,  they  must  get  discouraged,  in  see- 
ing so  LITTLE  EVIDENCE  OF  ITS  FRUITS  in  their  hearers. 
In  some  places,  particularly  cities  and  populous  towns, 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  3  13 

Doleful  proepect  for  their  preacher*.  The  publishing  business- 

preachers  are  decently  provided  for,  but  this  is  by  no 
means  generally  the  case  with  our  preachers  through- 
out the  country." 

He  speaks  also,  of  "  their  constant  removal  from  one 
place  to  another,"  as  one  of  the  "  evils  which  ought  to 
be  removed."  "  But  why  is  this  the  case  ?  Some- 
times the  people  want  him  to  go.  They  look  on  him 
as  a  hired  man  by  the  day  or  year ;  and  like  children 
tired  of  an  old  play  thing,  dismiss  him.  They  hire 
another,  and  are  soon  tired  of  their  new  rattle,  and  he 
is  again  dismissed  for  another,  perhaps  not  so  good  as 
the  two  former."  "  /  am  surprised  that  ANY  preacher 
continues  in  the  ministry,  or  that  any  should  enter  it 
under  such  a  state  of  things,  unless  it  be  for  the  pur- 
pose of  changing  them  for  the  better." 

Here,  then,  is  a  doleful  prospect  as  to  a  future  supply 
of  preachers,  and  a  sad  comment  on  the  ingratitude  and 
unfruitfulness  of  those  who  hear  them.  What,  when 
they  owe  all  their  hopes  of  future  bliss  to  the  oft-re- 
peated assurances  of  these  very  preachers,  can  they  not 
keep  them  from  want  and  begging  ? 

•*  By  me  thy  greatness  grew  ;  thy  years  grew  with  it, 
But  thy  ingratitude  outgrew  them  both." 

Mr.  Balfour  proceeds,  in  the  next  place,  to  show  the 
improbability  of  much  advance  in  the  publishing  line, 
and  to  give  some  account  of  his  own  sad  experience. 
"  Few,  if  any,  among  Universalists,  have  published 
more  books  of  this  kind  than  myself."  But,  "  so  far 
from  my  publications  being  a  profit  to  me,  they  have 
27 


314  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Heart-sickness.  Ingratitude  of  the  sect. 

only  been  a  bill  of  expense,  and  much  perplexity,  in 
addition  to  all  my  labor  in  writing  them,  so  much  so, 
that  /  have  been  tempted  to  curse  the  day  I  ever  published 
a  book."  (The  day  is  coming  when  he  will  curse  it 
bitterly  !)  "  Many  Universalists  seem  to  feel  little  in- 
terest in  reading  and  improving  themselves  as  to  their 
professed  faith."  (Why  should  they?  they  have 
learned  to  think  for  themselves  ?)  "  What  is  still 
more  painful,  some,  not  a  few,  have  got  my  books,  and, 
either  from  want  of  honesty,  or  carelessness,  have  for- 
gotten to  pay  for  them."  "  Who  will  be  such  a  fool 
as  I  have  been"  (truly !)  "  to  publish  books  on  Univer- 
sal Salvation,  if  this  is  the  way  their  labors  are  to  be 
rewarded  ?  I  AM  HEART-SICK  OF  IT  ;  and  to  be  told,  my 
books  have  contributed  much  to  the  rapid  spread  of  Uni- 
versalism,  has  no  tendency  to  remove  this  kind  of  sick- 
ness." Hence  he  concludes  that  there  is  but  poor  en- 
couragement to  write  such  books,  and  that  thus  one 
great  means  of  spreading  their  tenets  will  be  disconti- 
nued. How  strong  must  be  the  love  of  the  people  for 
their  religion,  when  their  poor  authors,  who  labor  night 
and  day  to  build  them  up  in  the  faith  in  spite  of  the 
English  Bible  and  the  orthodox,  must  pay  their  own 
expenses,  and  die  with  a  broken  heart !  If  such  has 
been  Mr.  Balfour's  experience, — a  man  who  has  de- 
served more  of  the  sect  than  any  other  man — what 
must  be  the  fate  of  the  "  lesser  lights." 

It  is  not  strange  that,  as  Mr.  B.  remarks,  the  life  of  a 
Universalist,  "  who  publishes  a  book  on  Universalism 
and  sends  it  to  persons  indiscriminately,  who  send  for 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  315 

A  proper  precaution.  Leaves  and  blossoms. 

it  to  sell  on  commission, — is  a  life  of  misery,  and 
gives  him  far  more  painful  labor  than  the  writing  of 
it"  He  thinks  that  there  is  so  little  ground  for  confi- 
dence among  his  own  people,  that  were  he  to  com- 
mence his  "  writing-life"  again,  he  would  sell  none  of 
his  books  on  credit,  "  except  to  persons"  he  remarks, 
"  whom  /  knew  to  be  trust-worthy,  either  from  my 
own  personal  knowledge,  or  from  the  testimony  of 
others  on  whom  I  could  depend."  Now  as  the  ortho- 
dox seldom  either  buy  or  sell  his  books,  these  remarks 
must  relate  entirely  to  Universalists,  and  show  how 
little  confidence  they  have  reason  to  have  in  one  ano- 
ther. What  an  admirable  system  !  How  "  worthy  of 
all  acceptation  !" 

The  fate  of  their  periodicals  has  been  much  the  same. 
"  Very  few  of  them  have  been  a  source  of  much  profit 
to  their  proprietors ;  many  of  them  have  been  a  dead  loss 
and  abandoned ;  and  some  of  them  are  struggling  for 
life,  uncertain  but  death  will  be  the  issue."  And  this 
is  owing  to  the  fact  "  that  we  have  much  chaff 
among  us." 

From  this  review  of  the  past  and  present,  Mr.  B. 
concludes  that  "  the  same  means,  and  the  same  degree 
of  them,  will  not  answer  as  in  times  past.  The  tree  of 
Universalism  has  put  forth  leaves  and  blossoms ;  but 
people  now  look  for  solid  fruits  from  it.  People  must 
live  Universalism  as  well  as  talk  it,  showing  out  of  a 
good  conversation  their  works  with  meekness  of  wis- 
dom. They  must  turn  their  attention  to  every  other 
part  of  the  will  of  God  made  known  in  the  Bible,  and 


316  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT 


A  barren  tree.  Universalism  in  Philadelphia. 

not  suppose  that  it  only  teaches  Universal  Salvation. 
They  must  show  that  they  are  saved, — shine  as  lights 
in  the  world." 

It  is,  then,  admitted  by  one,  who  has  every  reason  to 
know,  who  has  given  the  sect  a  fair  trial,  that  this 
glorious  doctrine  has  hitherto  brought  forth  little  else 
than  "  leaves  and  blossoms."  The  "  solid  fruits"  are 
yet  to  be  seen.  Alas  for  the  barren  fig-tree !  '  Why 
cumbereth  it  the  ground  V 

It  was  confessed  by  Mr.  Fuller  of  Philadelphia,  in 
1839,  (<  Univ.  Union,'  IV.  342,)  that  their  "  two  places 
of  public  worship— were,  ten  years  ago,  as  well  attend- 
ed, or  nearly  so,  as  they  are  now  ;" — that  (p.  327,)  as 
to  one  of  their  societies,  "  those  they  deemed  their 
right-hand  men.,  have  deserted  from  their  ranks,  or 
abandoned  their  posts  in  the  citadel  of  truth,  for  the 
barbarous  habit  of  spending  their  Sundays  in  rambling 
for  recreation,  or  in  lounging  and  loitering  for  ease." 
And  of  those  who  remain  in  the  two  societies,  it  is  said, 
(p.  342,) — "  some  attend,  say  once  in  four  weeks, 
some  once  in  twelve,  some  once  or  twice  a  year,  and 
some,  when  some  celebrated  brother  visits  us."  And 
(on  page  388,)  we  are  told  that "  there  are  many  peo- 
ple calling  themselves  '  liberal'  in  this  city,  who  sel- 
dom or  never  favor  us  with  their  company  at  church, 
nor  do  they  in  any  way  aid  our  cause,"  and  yet  they 
are  "  great  Universalists,"  in  their  own  estimation. 
"  Not  more  than  one-half  of  the  nominal  Universalists 
in  this  city,  who  are  abundantly  able  to  pay  for  one  of 
our  best  weeklies,  take  one  of  them."  The  writer 


FRUITS  OF  UNIVERSALISM.  317 

Bible  seldom  read.  Uni versa) i.-m  in  New  York. 

thinks,  (or  did  think,  for  he  has  since  deceased,)  that 
it  cannot  be  for  want  of  time  to  read  them,  "  espe- 
cially where  (p.  359,)  people  READ  THE  BIBLE  so  LITTLE 
AS  UNIVERSALISTS  GENERALLY  DO,  who  take  none  of  our 
papers." 

Are  these  the  fruits  of  Universalism  ?  They  are,  if 
we  may  believe  those  who  ought  to  know  best.  This 
is  not '  orthodox  slang,'  but  genuine  Universalist  truth. 
What  is  here  said  of  Philadelphia,  it  is  thought  would 
hold  good  of  New  York.  Fifteen  years  since  the  pros- 
pects of  the  sect  were  at  least  as  good  as,  if  not  better 
than,  they  are  now.  Then  a  flourishing  society  of  Trin- 
itarian Restorationists  were  accustomed  to  assemble  in 
Duane  street ;  and  their  place  of  worship  was  overflowing. 
This  society  has  become  entirely  extinct ;  and  their  house 
of  worship  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Roman  Catholics. 

The  first  Universdlist  Society  of  Unitarians  separat- 
ed from  the  former,  and  built  a  large  brick  church  in 
Prince-street,  where  for  a  time  Mr.  Kneeland  preached. 
This  society  has  also  become  extinct,  and  their  former 
house  of  worship  is  owned  by  Associate  Presbyterians. 

The  second  Universalist  Society  was  formed  by  a  se- 
cession from  the  first,  under  the  counsel  and  conduct  of 
Mr.  Kneeland,  and  worshiped  for  a  time  in  the  Mason- 
ic Hall,  until,  Mr.  K.  having  declared  the  Bible  to  be  a 
fable,  the  key  was  turned  upon  him  by  the  Treasurer  of 
the  Society.  The  fragments  of  the  body,  which  was 
then  broken  in  pieces,  were  afterwards  gathered  togeth- 
er, and  now  form  the  second  society  under  the  care  of 
Mr.  Sawyer,  worshiping  in  Orchard-street.  A  third  was 
27* 

/*S*  OF  TEH* 


318  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Slow  advances.  Poor  encouragements. 

organized  a  few  years  since,  and  erected  a  large  house 
of  worship  in  Bleeker-street,  but  are  without  a  pastor, 
very  few  in  number,  burdened  with  an  enormous  debt, 
and  unable  to  pay  it.  Their  house  will  probably  have 
to  be  sold.  A  fourth  was  organized  in  November, 
1838,  and  was,  until  last  July,  under  the  charge  of  Mr. 
Whittaker,  and  worshiped  in  the  house  formerly  occu- 
pied by  the  Restorationists.  But  the  house  having  now 
been  sold,  they  are  left  without  a  home,  and  will  find 
it,  feeble  as  they  are,  a  difficult  matter  to  hang  togeth- 
er. Their  present  preacher  is  Mr.  Williamson.  There 
is,  therefore,  now  in  reality  but  one  Universalist  Soci- 
ety in  this  city,  that  may  be  regarded  as  fully  establish- 
ed. The  remaining  two  are  sickly  infants.* 

Thus  in  fifteen  years  they  have  either  lost  ground,  or 
gained  but  little,  if  any  thing  ;  while  in  the  same  time 
the  population  of  the  city  has  nearly  doubled,  and  or- 
thodoxy in  all  its  branches  has  made  rapid  advances. 
This  is  surely  poor  encouragement,  and  augurs  darkly 
for  the  future. 

*  Since  the  above  was  written,  an  individual,  engaged  in 
school-teaching  in  Chambers  street,  and  holding  fellowship  as 
a  preacher  among  them,  has  opened  a  hall  in  the  Dry  Dock 
section  of  the  city,  and  has  preached  three  or  four  weeks  to  a 
society,  recently  and  in  consequence  organized,  in  that  neigh- 
borhood. With  two  other  societies  in  the  city  struggling  for 
existence,  it  may  well  be  regarded  as  a  Quixotic  adventure. 
There  are,  however,  infidels  enough  in  the  neighborhood  to  fur- 
nish, for  some  time,  a  congregation,  respectable  at  least  for 
numbers.  The  hall  in  which  they  meet  is  quite  contracted, 
and  so  easily  filled. 


FRUITS  OF   UNIVERSALISM.  319 

What  has  it  done  ?  Downward  tendencies. 

What  now,  I  ask,  taw  Universalism  done  for  the  good 
of  the  world,  ? — what,  that  would  not  have  been  better 
done  without  it  ?  Where  are  its  memorials — its  living 
witnesses  ?  What  drunkard  has  it  made  sober,  whom 
orthodoxy  had  given  up  1  What  debauchee,  utterly 
incurable  by  the  latter,  has  been  made  whole  by  the 
former  ?  What  backslider  has  it  ever  induced  to  rear 
again  the  family-altar,  and  become  a  serious  and  de- 
vout Christian  ?  The  Rev.  Mr.  M.  H.  Smith,  formerly 
a  Universalist  preacher,  recently  stated  in  a  public  lec- 
ture, as  reported  by  the  '  Congregational  Observer',  that 
"  during  a  ministry  of  twelve  years  he  had  never  known  a 
single  instance  of  a  reform — of  an  IMPROVEMENT  even — 
under  his  preaching.  And  he  never  heard  of  any  real 
reform  under  the  preaching  of  any  others  of  his  per- 
suasion. He  had  seen  men  growing  worse,  but  he  had 
never  seen  any  growing  better.  He  had  known  re- 
peated instances  of  transition,  in  those  who  became 
Universalists,  from  that  doctrine  to  Infidelity  and  thence 
to  Atheism.  Its  tendencies  were  all  and  always  down- 
ward. Its  strongest  supporters  were  in  reality  in  very 
many  cases  nothing  less  than  disguised,  if  less  than 
avowed,  infidels.  Of  its  ministry,  he  said,  within  six 
years  past,  he  had  known  twenty-six  abandon  the  doc- 
trine, and  for  the  most  part  in  disgust  with  the  morals 
of  its  professors."  (See  «  N.  York  Observer,'  XIX.  1.) 

A  similar  statement  was  made  to  myself  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Whittaker  of  this  city,  on  the  very  day  of  his  re- 
nunciation. In  a  conversation  a  few  days  afterwards 


320  UNIVERSALISM   AS   IT   IS. 

A  powerless  system.  No  prayers  to  boast  of. 

with  Mr.  Sawyer  of  this  city,  I  urged  him  to  tell  me 
what  had  been  the  moral  results  of  his  own  preaching, 
and  could  obtain  no  satisfactory  answer.  He  thought 
that  he  knew  of  those  who  had  been  made  better,  but 
not  an  instance  was  given ;  and  the  absence  of  such 
results  was  attempted  to  be  accounted  for,  by  the  belli- 
gerant  attitude  which  the  sect  have  been  obliged  to  as- 
sume, from  its  rise  until  the  present  time. 

It  is  not  said  that  they  never  preach  against  sin — 
that  they  never  warn  men  against  immorality.  This 
they  may  'do,  but  such  preaching  has  hitherto,  unaccom- 
panied by  the  mighty  sanctions  of  gospel-truth,  proved, 
and  must  ever  prove,  utterly  powerless.  I  cannot  re- 
member to  have  seen  in  all  my  researches^  in  any  one 
of  their  publications,  one  single  exhortation  from  one  of 
their  number  to  a  faithful  discharge  of  the  duty  of  se- 
cret vocal  prayer — or  any  attempt  to  inculcate  the  duty 
of  family-prayer  ;  though  in  some  instances  I  have 
seen  an  attempt  to  ridicule  the  latter,  as  altogether  too 
Pharisaical  for  a  liberal  Christian.  "  Do  not  those," 
says  Mr.  Sawyer,  ('  Letters  to  Remington,'  p.  145,) 
"  who  assume  much  of  the  religion  of  the  land,  the  pi- 
ous and  praying  people,  (I  mean  such  as  have  piety 
and  prayers  to  boast  of,)  oppose  and  persecute  Univer- 
salists,  and  for  the  same  reasons  that  the  Pharisees  of 
old  persecuted  the  disciples  of  Christ  ?"  They  want  no 
"  prayers  to  boast  of"  and  verily  they  have  it  according 
to  their  wish. 

I  have  been  informed  by  one  that  had  much  oppor- 


FRUITS   OF    UNIVERSALISM.  321 

No  family- prayer.  Not  worthy  of  irurt. 

t unity  to  know,  having  himself  been  one  of  their 
preachers,  that  it  is  a  very  rare  thing  to  see  the  household 
of  even  one  of  their  ministers  called  together  for  family- 
prayer,  and  that,  when  it  is  witnessed,  it  is  only,  for  the 
most  part,  on  extraordinary  occasions,  and  not  as  a 
daily  duty ;  that  it  is  even  rare  to  hear  God's  blessing 
invoked  at  the  table  of  his  bounty ;  and  that,  judging 
from  his  own  habits,  and  what  he  knew  of  his  former 
brethren,  he  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  even  their 
preachers  are  accustomed  to  maintain  closet-prayer. 
And  yet  these  men  pretend  to  know  better  the  will  of 
God,  than  they  whose  daily  delight  it  is  to  hold  com- 
munion with  God  in  secret,  and  seek  by  earnest  prayer 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit !  And  this,  they  say,  is 
the  religion  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles ! 

•« Credat  Judeeus  Apella, 

Non  ego." 

Let  the  credulous  debauchee,  the  profane  libeler  of  the 
humble  followers  of  Jesus,  the  careless  devotee  of  Fol- 
ly and  Fashion,  believe  in  such  expounders  of  the  mind 
and  will  of  a  holy  God,  if  they  can  ;  and  trust  their 
souls  to  such  prayerless  preachers,  if  they  will.  But 
we  have  learned  to  set  a  higher  value  on  our  souls,  and 
on  the  promise  of  God  to  hear  and  answer  prayer,  than 
to  look  up  to  men  as  our  spiritual  guides,  whose  closets 
are  never  visited  to  seek  and  obtain  the  wisdom  which 
cometh  from  above,  who  never  advise  their  hearers  to 
utter  prayer  in  secret,  and  who  even  ridicule  those,  who 


322  UNIVERSALISM  AS    IT    IS. 

We  cannot  trust  them. 

so  feel  their  own  weakness,  and  so  rely  on  God's  prom- 
ise, as  to  pay  their  vows  every  morning  and  evening  at 
their  private  altar,  and  pray  to  him  who  has  promised 
to  reward  them  openly.  To  those  who  urge  us  to  fol- 
low such  leaders  we  must  therefore  say — "  Have  me 
excused" 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

LEARNING     OF    UNIVERSALIST    PREACHERS. 

The  work  done — The  charge  conceded — Utterly  unlike  every 
other  scheme — A  mass  of  heresies — A  man's  creed  of  no  con- 
sequence—Latitudinanans — A  modern  Pantheon — Is  this 
the  Bride  ? — Their  peculiar  claims  on  our  confidence — Lite- 
rary character  of  James  Relly — Of  John  Murray — Of  Hosea 
Ballou—Of  Abner  Kneeland — Of  Walter  Balfour—Of  Me 
junior  preachers — Qualifications  necessary  to  their  preachers 
—Of  A.  B.  Grosh—Of  J.  D.  Williamson— Of  their  whole 
ministry — Final  appeal  to  the  reader. 

"  But  muse  !  forbear ;  long  flights  forbode  a  fall ; 
Strike  on  the  deep-ton'd  chord  the  sum  of  all; 
Hear  the  just  law — the  judgment  of  the  skies: 
He  that  hates  truth  shall  be  the  dupe  of  lie* ; 
And  he  that  icill  be  cheated  to  the  last, 
Delusions,  strong  as  Hell,  shall  bind  him  fast." 

COWFKK. 

THE  work  is  done.  Modern  Universalism  in  America 
has  passed  in  review  before  us.  It  has  been  permitted 
to  speak  for  itself.  We  have  seen  the  TREE  and  ITS 
FRUITS — the  doctrines  and  their  results.  •  We  have  lis- 
tened to  its  arrogant  claims,  and  have  suffered  ourselves 
for  the  moment  to  be  unchurched.  The  learning,  and 
wisdom,  and  piety  of  all  past  time  have  been  made 


324  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Opposition  to  every  other  faith  A  mass  of  heresies. 

foolishness  by  its  unbounded  pretensions.  Truth  appears 
to  have  fled  the  earth,  until  it  found  a  resting-place  in 
the  breast  of  Mr.  Ballon ! 

"  Now,  Truth  !  perform  thine  office."  Say  to  what 
belongs  this  scheme  1  Whence  came  it  ?  Whose  is 
it  ?  Are  they,  who  espouse  it,  all  right,  and  all  the 
world  besides  in  error  ?  That  they  stand  out  alone 
from  all  the  Christian  world,  they  themselves  confess. 
"  There  is  no  denomination,"  they  say,  ('  Mag.  &  Adv.' 
III.  349,)  "  to  take  us  by  the  hand,  acknowledge  us  as 
a  member  of  the  Christian  family,  admit  any  of  our  pe- 
culiar opinions  as  even  the  shadow  of  truth,  or  in  any 
wise,  to  feel  towards  us  the  least  degree  of  friendship  or 
fellowship.  It  is  the  doctrine,  the  whole  doctrine,  and 
nothing  but  the  doctrine,  that  draws  down  on  us  dis- 
fellowship,  reproach,  and  persecution.  OUR  FAITH,  as 
of  old,  IS  OPPOSED,  IN  EVERY  MATERIAL 
PART  THAT  CAN  AFFECT  THE  HONOR  OF 
GOD  AND  THE  HAPPINESS  OF  MAN,  TO  THE 
FAITH  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD." 

That  this  declaration  is  true  must  now  be  apparent 
to  every  reader.  There  is  no  "  material  part"  of  Chris- 
tian faith  which  these  innovators  have  not  done  their 
utmost  to  subvert.  Let  this  concession  never  be  for- 
gotten. 

Other  systems  of  error  have,  for  the  most  part,  con- 
tented themselves  with  a  single  departure  from  the 
faith.  But  this  is  a  complete  MASS  OF  HERESIES.  It 
openly  advances,  as  constituent  parts  of  itself,  the  very 
worst  features  of  Pelagianism,  Antinomianism,  Saddu^ 


LEARNING   OF   UNIVERSALIST   PREACHERS.  325 

With  whom  th<-y  hold  fellowship.  The  gn-U  st  l.-itiliids  nJ.uwcd. 

ceeism,  Arianism,  Monophosytism,  Socinianism,  and 
Materialism.  It  embraces  within  its  ample  arms  all, 
no  matter  what  they  else  believe,  or  how  abhorrent 
their  other  views  may  be,  who  believe  in  the  final 
holiness  and  happiness  of  the  human  race.  It  pro- 
fesses to  regard  it  as  of  no  consequence  whether 
a  man  be  a  Trinitarian,  Arian,  or  a  Socinian ;  a  Ma- 
terialist or  Immaterialist ;  whether  he  believes  one 
creed  or  another,  provided,  though  even  this  affects 
not  at  all  his  fuiure  -welfare,  he  agrees  with  them  in 
the  result.  They,  the  followers  of  this  creed,  maintain 
fellowship  with  Deists,  and  Libertines,  and  Atheists, 
but  withhold  it  from  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Bap- 
tists, and  Methodists.  While  they  ridicule  the  devout, 
and  earnest,  and  zealous  labors  of  the  latter,  they 
join  hands  with  the  former  in  laughing  at,  what  they 
call,  the  bigotry  and  superstition  of  your  "  pious  and 
praying  people."  They  make  common  cause  with  the 
infidel,  by  their  constant  efforts  to  unsettle  the  confidence 
of  their  hearers  in  the  common  translation  of  the  'Bible, 
delighting  to  make  use  of  those  texts  which  most  plainly 
speak  against  their  doctrine,  and  so  to  torture  them 
as  to 

"  Make  the  worse  appear 

The  better  reason,  to  perplex  and  daah 
Maturest  counsels.*' 

Of  all  Latitudinarians  these  are  the  most  worthy  of 
the  name.     No  heretic  can  wish  more  liberty  than  is 
here  allowed.     As  in  the  ancient  Pantheon,  every  prin- 
28 


326  UNFVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

A  modern  I'aiitlieon.  Why  are  they  to  be  believed  7 

cipal  heresiarch  may  here  find  a  niche  for  himself,  and 
receive  the  homage  of  his  followers.  The  greatest 
amity  pervades  the  brotherhood,  whether  Jove,  or  Ve- 
nus, or  Bacchus  be  the  presiding  deity.  Nor  must  the 
lines  be  tighter  drawn,  lest  some  good  free-thinking 
brother  take  offence  and  desert  the  holy  cause  ! 

Is  this  the  Bride  ?  Is  this  the  reality  of  what  John 
saw  in  vision,  when  one  of  the  seven  angels  said  to  him 
— "  Come  hither,  I  will  show  thee  the  Bride — the  Lamb's 
wife !"  Where  is  the  "  fine  linen,  clean  and  white/' 
arrayed  in  which  she  then  appeared  ? 

"  If  thou  beest  she  !  but  Oh  !  howfaH'n!  how  chang'd !'' 

Is  this  she  that  is  "  comely  as  Jerusalem,  terrible  as  an 
army  with  banners  ?" — to  whom  the  Bridegroom  says, 
"  thou  art  all  fair,  my  love  !  there  is  no  spot  in  thee  1" 
Alas  !  "  all  her  beauty  is  departed."  "  How  is  the  gold 
become  dim!  how  is  the  most  fine  gold  changed !" 

But,  ere  we  receive  this  system  as  true,  as  the  very 
system  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  we  may  be  permitted 
to  ask — What  peculiar  claims  have  its  advocates  to  be 
regarded  as  the  only  true  expounders  of  Scripture  ? 
As  we  have  already  seen,  in  its  present  form  it  has 
not  seen  a  quarter  of  a  century.  Some  of  its  peculiar 
doctrines  have  been  professed  in  former  ages,  but, 
always,  by  only  a  small  portion  of  the  Christian  world. 
Not  one  of  them  has  ever  been  the  exposition  of  the 
church.  Not  one  of  them  has  not  been  again  and 
again  condemned  by  the  vast  body  of  professing  Chris- 
tians. The  multitude  in  every  age  since  the  earliest 


LEARNING    OF    UNIVERSALIST    PREACHERS.  327 

The  mark*  of  truth.  Learning  of  Relly. 

have  given  their  voice  against  it.  How  is  this  to  be 
accounted  for  1 

I  know,  that  "  the  voice  of  the  people"  is  not  always 
to  be  regarded  as  "  the  voice  of  God  ;"  and  that  it  is 
written,  "  Thou  shalt  not  follow  a  multitude  to  do  evil." 
But  what  has  been  believed  in  every  age,  in  all  circum- 
stances of  the  church,  in  every  land  where  the  Bible  is 
read  and  studied,  bears  on  its  very  face  the  marks  of 
truth — of  common  sense.  At  all  events,  it  is  not  to  be 
railed  at ;  it  is  not  to  be  discarded,  as  unworthy  notice, 
"  absurd  and  ridiculous ;"  it  is  not  to  be  set  aside,  un- 
less those  who  advocate  a  contrary  opinion  can  show, 
that  they  have  had  superior  advantages  for  arriving  at 
the  meaning  of  the  sacred  oracles. 

Who,  then,  are  these  Universalist  authors  and  preach- 
ers, that  they  should  lay  claim  to  such  superior  wisdom  ? 
Are  they,  or  have  they  been,  the  most  profoundly  versed 
of  all  men  in  the  knowledge  of  either  their  own  lan- 
guage, or  the  original  languages  of  Scripture  ? — men  of 
the  most  shrewd,  and  penetrating  intellects  1 — the 
most  subtle  of  logicians  ? — the  most  unfettered  by  pre- 
judice, superstition,  or  bigotry? — the  most  free  to  think, 
and  determine  for  themselves  ? — the  most  humble,  spi- 
ritual, devout,  and  prayerful  of  men  ? 

Who  are  these  Universalists  ?  The  founder  of  the 
sect  in  England  was  James  Relly.  But  who  was  James 
Relly,  that  he  should  have  known  more  than  all  the 
wise  men  who  flourished  in  the  days  of  Watts,  Guyse, 
Gill,  Seeker,  Potter,  Doddridge,  Newton,  Wresley, 
Whitefield,  Edwards,  Jenyns,  Witherspoon,  Hopkins, 


328  UNTVERSALISM   AS  IT  IS. 

Of  Murray.  Of  the  elder  Ballou. 

Styles,  Watson,  Paley,  &c.  &c.?  Mr.  Relly  was  a 
preacher  or  exhorter  under  the  direction  and  patronage 
of  Mr.  Whitefield  in  the  first  instance,  destitute,  as  far 
as  I  can  learn,  of  all  knowledge  of  any  other  language 
than  his  own,  of  which  he  knew  just  enough  to  enable 
him  to  speak  and  write  passably.  Such  was  the  man 
who  set  himself  in  array  against  the  giants  of  that  age, 
as  the  only  one  to  whom  the  true  meaning  of  the  Bible 
was  known  !  Will  it  be  said,  that  Mr.  Relly  was  the 
only  one  of  that  age,  who  dared  to  think  for  himself — 
an  age  so  fruitful  in  free-thinkers  ?  The  very  supposi- 
tion is  absurd. 

And  who  was  John  Murray  1  Let  any  man  read 
his  "  Life,"  and  he  will  find  enough  to  warrant  the 
conclusion,  that  Murray  was  possessed  of  nothing  more 
than  a  very  common  English  education,  utterly  un- 
versed in  theology — a  perfect  changeling — a  creature 
of  circumstances,  and  utterly  unfitted  for  the  work  of 
expounding  the  sacred  oracles.  This  last  charge  is  now 
confessed  by  our  modern  Universalists,  who  are  fully 
persuaded  that  his  views  of  Scripture  were  all  wrong, 
save  in  the  one  particular  of  Final  Universal  Salvation. 
They  have  discarded  all  but  that.  Neither  Relly  nor 
Murray,  from  aught  that  appears,  had  any,  even  the 
slightest  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  languages, 
but  gathered  their  system  from  the  English  translation 
alone. 

But  neither  of  these  were  properly  the  sires  of  the 
race  whose  tenets  we  have  now  considered.  Who, 
then,  is  Hosea  Ballou  ?  His  books  speak  for  them- 


LEARNING   OF    UNIVERSAL1ST   PREACHERS.  329 

Ignorance  of  Mr.  Uulluu.  Credulity  of  his  adherents. 

selves.  They  show  no  acquaintance  with  any  lan- 
guage but  his  vernacular,  and  of  this,  even  at  the  pre- 
sent period,  a  very  imperfect  one.  When  he  embraced 
Universalism,  he  had  "  never  read  any  thing  on  the 
doctrine,  the  Bible  excepted,"  and  was  so  uninformed, 
that  he  did  not  know,  "  that  there  was  any  thing  pub- 
lished in  its  vindication  in  the  world."  In  the  process 
of  discarding  "  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  and  the  com- 
mon notion  of  the  atonement,"  he  "  had  the  assistance 
of  no  author  or  writer."  Nine  or  ten  years  after  he  be- 
gan to  preach,  as  I  have  been  informed,  and  after  he 
had  embraced  most  of  his  present  views,  he  set  himself  to 
leam  the  English  grammar  !  Even  to  this  day,  Mr. 
Ballou  makes  but  little  pretensions  to  learning,  and  of 
scholarship  he  has  none.  Yet  he  knows  better  what 
the  Bible  teaches  than  the  most  erudite  scholar  of  the 
age  !  This  is  the  man  who  has  given  form  and  feature 
to  the  whole  system  that  has  now  passed  in  review  be- 
fore us  ! !  They  who  have  come  after  him  have  only 
polished  the  rude  materials  received  from  him. 

Is  it  not  the  very  height  of  presumption  now,  for 
one  of  such  very  humble  attainments,  one,  who,  to  say 
the  least,  is  not  remarkably  distinguished  for  piety,  to 
set  up  his  own  judgment  in  opposition  to  nearly  all  the 
learning,  wisdom,  and  piely  of  this  and  every  preced- 
ing age,  and  require  us  all  to  follow  where  he  leads? 
And  is  it  not  the  extreme  of  credulity  for  any  one  to  put 
more  confidence  in  him  than  in  all  his  coevals  and  pre- 
decessors ?  Until  Mr.  Ballou  can  show  us  some  more 
valid  reasons  for  reposing  in  his  superior  judgment,  and 
knowledge  of  the  will  of  God,  we  must  be  allowed  to 
28* 


330  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Of  the  younger  preachers.  Of  Mr.  Bnlfour. 

"  stand  in  the  ways,  and  see,  and  ask  for  the  old  paths, 
where  is  the  good  way  and  walk  therein." 

Nor  have  we  any  better  reason  to  confide  in  Mr. 
Ballou's  disciples.  With  a  very  few,  if  any,  excep- 
tions, they  are  devoid  of  all  claims  to  our  confidence  as 
expounders  of  Scripture.  Some  there  are,  a  very  few, 
who  have  some  acquaintance  with  the  original  lan- 
guages of  the  Bible.  But  these,  the  most  of  them,  ac- 
quired that  knowledge  after  that  they  had  embraced 
Universalism,  and  sought  it  for  the  very  purpose  of 
making  the  people  have  a  greater  regard  to  their  pre- 
conceived opinions  of  truth.  Like  Mr.  Kneeland,  they 
were  "  denied  in  early  life  the  benefits  of  a  classical 
education,  entering  into  the  ministry  totally  ignorant  of 
the  dead  languages."  Many  of  them  previously  seem 
to  have  been  "  to  nothing  fixed  but  change  ;"  as  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Balfour,  who,  bred  in  the  church  of  Scot- 
land, next  became  an  Independent,  or  Congregational- 
ist,  then  a  Baptist,  and  at  last  a  Universalist ; — so  as  to 
give  occasion  to  an  opponent  to  say  that  he  changed 
his  "  opinions  annually."  This  is  the  erudite  scholar, 
to  walk  in  whose  light  the  whole  Universalist  denom- 
ination have  forsaken  all  the  ancients  and  nearly  all  the 
moderns  ;  a  man  whose  "  First  Inquiry"  amounted  to 
no  more  nor  less  than  this :  viz.  that  the  doctrine  of  fu- 
ture punishment  must  rest  on  Gehenna  alone ;  that  this 
word  will  bear  no  other  application  than  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  and  that  therefore,  as  one  has  it, 
"  there  can  be  no  punishment  after  death  for  any  indi- 
vidual, because  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  in  this  world !" 


LEARNING  OF  UNIVERSALIST  PREACHERS.  331 

His  writings  characterized.  Unblushing  arrogance. 

His  "  Second  Inquiry"  is  no  inquiry  at  all,  but  a  de- 
fence of  views  already  cherished  as  he  tells  us  in  his  In- 
troduction, p.  7  ;  "  believing  that  the  common  doctrines 
of  the  devil  and  eternal  punishment  have  long  been  a 
disgrace  to  the  church  of  God,  I  have  ventured  to  at- 
tempt their  removal."  His  whole  labors  in  these  In- 
quiries have  well  been  characterized  by  one  of  the 
greatest  Biblical  scholars  of  the  age  as  "  rash  and  ad- 
venturous criticisms,  evidently  the  offspring  neither  of 
patient  investigation,  nor  yet  of  serious  desire  to  know 
what  the  Bible  has  decided,  but  intended  only  to  remove 
the  difficulties  which  the  Scriptures  throw  in  the  way 
of  his  opinions/'  His  "  scholarship"  has  been  well 
characterized  by  another,  and  a  Restorationist  too,  as 
follows : — "  though  he  makes  a  great  display  of  He- 
brew and  Greek  learning,  whoever  will  take  the  trou- 
ble to  examine  his  writings  will  readily  see,  that  a  great 
part  of  his  criticisms  are  quotations  from  other  authors  ; 
as  to  his  own  criticisms,  they  are  almost  invariably  cri- 
ticisms upon  a  single  term.  And  any  novice  who 
knows  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  alphabets,  can  take 
Parkhurst's  Hebrew  and  Greek  Lexicons,  and  criticise 
in  the  same  manner."  Yet  the  same  writer  adds,  and 
very  justly,  "  that  his  writings  show  more  learning  than 
judgment  /"  But  the  Universalists  are  determined  to 
have  it  that  he  is  the  wisest  man  of  the  age  ; — "  to  whom 
they  all  gave  heed,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  saying 
*  This  man  is  the  great  power  of  God.9  " 

Nothing  can  exceed  the  assurance,  with  which  near- 
ly every  upstart  Universalist  preacher  in   the  land  now 


332  UN1VERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

Learning  required  of  th<  ir  preachers.  Ignorance  of  English  Graminnr. 

decries  the  orthodox  ministry  as  blinded,  bigoted,  and 
ignorant  of  the  obvions  meaning  of  Scripture-words. 
They  can  talk  most  learnedly  of  Sheol,  Hades,  Tarta- 
rus, and  Gehenna,  Satan  andDiabolos,  Olam,  Aion  and 
Aionios  ;  and  yet  not  one  in  ten  of  them  can  tell  an  Al- 
pha from  an  Omega,  and  not  one  in  twenty,  if  as  many, 
a  Beth  from  a  Daleth  ! 

What  are  the  qualifications  necessary  to  become  a 
preacher  of  this  sect  ?  A  few  years  since  one  of  their 
associations  established  a  rule  to  require  "  the  study  of 
theology,  for  six  months,  under  a  Universalist  preacher, 
an  acquaintance  with  English  grammar,"  "  logic,"  and 
"  rhetoric,"  and  "  the  delivery  of  a  moral  or  religious 
essay  before  a  committee."  And  yet,  meagre  as  was 
the  requisition,  it  drew  forth  a  loud  remonstrance.  The 
first  requisition  was  pronounced  ('  Mag.  and  Adv.'  III. 
335,)  "  absolutely  useless"  "  one  of  the  abominations 
of  Partialism,"  "  threatening  ill  to  the  welfare  of  our 
order,"  and  "  the  beginning  of  an  evil  that  will  ulti- 
mately drive  from  our  order  the  honest,  liberal,  and  in- 
dependent-minded, and  sink  us  into  the  intolerance  and 
despotism  of  our  Partialist  brethren."  Nay,  more,  in 
relation  to  the  requirement  of  "  an  acquaintance  with 
the  English  Grammar"  Mr.  Grosh  further  observes, 
(p.  342,) — "  We  do  consider  this  an  absurd  requisition 
for  the  candidate  for  the  ministry — particularly  when 

MANY  OF  OUR  BEST  AND  ABLEST  PREACHERS  COULD  NOT, 
EVEN  NOW,  PASS  THE  REQUIRED  EXAMINATION"  !  !  !  The 

other  requisition  he  considers  equally  useless,  (and  so 
do  we,)  for  a  Universalist  preacher. 


LEARNING  OF  UN1VERSALIST  PREACHERS.  333 

Tiit-ir  most  popular  preaclicin.  Of  Mr.  Grotih  and  Mr.  Willian  wm. 

In  the  *  Gospel  Anchor,'  (II.  141,)  we  perceive  it  re- 
marked by  a  correspondent  of  the  *  Christian  Messen- 
ger,' that  "  at  the  present  time  ( 1832,)  MANY  OF  OUR 

MOST   POPULAR    AND   MOST   USEFUL     PREACHERS     have     I1O 

pretensions  of  that  sort,   and  ARE   IN  FACT  UNABLE  TO 

WRITE    A    SERMON    CORRECTLY,  that  is,  without  grOSS  WO- 

lations  of  the  roost  common  principles  of  rhetoric  and 
English  Grammar  /"  And  though  the  editor  is  "  of 
the  opinion  that  this  remark  is  incorrect,"  (and  the 
opinion  of  the  one  is  just  as  good  as  that  of  the  other,) 
he  is  free  to  say — "  We  have  no  doubt  the  time  has 
been  when  a  preacher  of  this  stamp  might  have  been 
popular  and  useful !"  The  only  difference  between  the 
two,  is  not  in  the  fact,  but,  in  point  of  time.  Such 
either  are,  or  have  been,  the  men  by  whose  labors  Uni- 
versulism  has  been  promoted.  The  reader  will  proba- 
bly determine,  from  his  own  observation,  that  they  both 
have  been  and  still  are.  The  editor,  moreover,  observes, 
concerning  this  test  of  ministerial  fellowship,  (p.  157,) 
— "  This  act  of  the  Association  seems  likely  to  meet 
with  a  pretty  spirited  opposition  from  many  of  our  mi- 
nisters and  editorial  brethren."  Both  Mr.  Grosh  and 
Mr.  Williamson  confess  that  such  a  test  would  have 
excluded  them  from  fellowship  at  the  time  they  were 
received  ;  and  the  latter  states  expressly,  (p.  157,)  that 
he  entered  into  the  ministry  utterly  unqualified  to  dis- 
charge its  duties  with  credit  to  the  cause ;"  and,  he  adds, 
"  we  sit  not  down  to  write  a  sermon  without  deeply 
feeling  our  want  of  a  more  liberal  education,  and  a 
mind  better  disciplined  and  improved  by  study."  This 


334  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

All  may  preach  that  will.  Such  guides  abjured. 

is  the  man,  who  in  an  '  Exposition  of  Universalism,' 
largely  quoted  in  this  work,  having  preached  but  little 
more  than  ten  years,  with  such  wonderful  previous  ad- 
vantages, does  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  the  contrary 
scheme  of  doctrine,  unscriptural,  unreasonable  and  ab- 
surd. 

But  what  shall  we  say  in  regard  to  the  distinguished 
claims  of  the  Universalist  ministry,  when  we  hear  this 
same  editor  confess  as  follows  ?  (p.  165,)  "  It  is  true 
that  committees  have  been  appointed  [by  the  associa- 
tions,] for  the  purpose  of  examining  candidates  for  the 
ministry,  but  these  committees  have  never  been  told, 
whether  they  must  require  a  man  to  be  able  to  read  or 
write.  The  consequence  has  been  that  every  man  who 
has  applied  has  received  letters  of  fellowship  ;  or  at  least, 
we,  have,  never  known  an  instance,  where  a  man  has 
been  told  that  he  must  qualify  himself  better  in  a  literary 
point  of  view,  before  he  could  be  placed  in  the  ministe- 
rial office  ///"  And  to  crown  the  whole,  any  young  man 
among  them  may  preach,  if  he  please,  without  fellow- 
ship, and  before  he  has  attained  these  wonderful  quali- 
fications required  by  the  "  Hudson  River  Association" 
of  Universalists,  if  he  can  induce  any  to  hear  him. 

Must  we  be  called  bigoted,  superstitious  and  intoler- 
ant, because  we  decline  receiving  such  men  as  our  spi- 
ritual guides,  and  to  admit  that  they  only  have  ar- 
rived at  the  true  meaning  of  the  sacred  oracles  ?  Must 
we  be  required  to  forsake  the  wisdom  of  all  past  ages 
to  sit  at  the  feet  of  such  teachers — meekly  receiving  all 
their  dogmas  as  inspired  truth  ?  Must  we  give  up 


CONCLUSION.  335 


Biii.il  Irndcr*  of  tin-  bind.  App«-al  to  Uie  reader. 

long-established  principles  of  interpretation  and  all  con- 
fidence in  the  best  lexicographers,  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
English,  for  the  oracular  lessons  of  men,  who  cannot 
agree  that  a  correct  knowledge  of  English  grammar  is 
essential  to  the  Christian  ministry  ?  "  THEY  BE  BLIND 

LEADERS  OF  THE  BLIND  ;  AND  IF  THE  BLIND  LEAD  THE 
BLIND,  BOTH  SHALL  FALL  INTO  THE  DITCH." 

In  now  taking  leave  of  the  reader,  I  cannot  forbear 
a  word  of  admonition.  Nothing  but  a  thorough  con- 
viction of  the  dreadful  delusions  of  this  vaunted  creed, 
and  a  most  ardent  desire  to  do  something  to  open  the 
eyes  of  the  community  to  the  fallacy  of  this  system, 
and  the  danger  of  listening  to  its  syren  songs,  would 
have  induced  me,  in  the  midst  of  other  very  numerous 
and  arduous  avocations,  to  have  given  this  exposition  to 
the  world.  To  none  of  the  followers  or  advocates  of 
Universalism  do  I  owe  the  least  ill-will,  or  aught  but 
love.  "  My  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for" 
them  "  is,  that  they  might  be  saved."  And  for  this  I 
have  written,  labored  and  pleaded.  Having  underta- 
ken the  investigation  for  my  own  satisfaction,  I  have 
felt  it  due  to  my  own  congregation,  and  the  communi- 
ty with  which  I  am  associated,  to  spread  before  them 
the  results  of  this  investigation,  and  some  of  the  autho- 
rities from  which  my  conclusions  are  drawn. 

The  reader  can  now  see  what  Universalism  is  ; — not 
as  represented  by  its  opposers,  but  as  it  is  exhibited  by 
its  founders  and  warmest  friends.  Let  me  ask — Is  it 
"  worthy  of  all  acceptation  ?"  Can  you  lay  your  hand 
on  your  heart  and  say,  that,  if  you  had  never  heard  a 


336  UNIVERSALISM  AS  IT  IS. 

The  Universalist  not  at  rest.  Strong  delusions. 

Universalist  preacher,  or  read  a  Universalist  book,  or 
talked  with  one  of  their  sect,  you  would  have  gathered 
such  a  scheme  from  the  pages  of  the  Bible  alone  ? — Nay 
more ;  Do  you  not  even  now,  if  you  have  embraced 
the  doctrine,  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  make  it  coin- 
cide with  the  plain,  direct  words  of  the  Bible  1  Are 
you  not  driven  to  depend  almost  entirely  on  what  you 
either  read  or  hear  from  your  preachers,  in  order  to  an- 
swer your  opponents  and  stifle  the  rising  doubt  in  your 
own  bosom  1  Have  you  ever  seen  the  time  when,  for 
any  considerable  period,  you  were  perfectly  at  rest,  and 
free  from  all  doubt  of  the  truth  of  this  system  ?  Has 
not  the  intelligence  of  a  sudden  and  awful  death  fre- 
quently disturbed  your  composure  ?  Can  you  say  that 
you  are  now  fully  and  perfectly  confirmed  in  this 
faith  1 

If  you  can  answer  all  these  questions  with  perfect 
confidence  in  the  truth  of  your  creed,  it  by  no  means 
proves  that  your  faith  is  in  accordance  with  Scripture. 
You  may  be  of  the  unhappy  number  of  whom  it  is 
said, — (2  Thess.  ii.  11,)  "For  this  cause  God  shall 
send  them  strong  delusions,  that  they  should  believe  a 
lie."  And  how  can  you  be  assured,  while  under  the 
influence  of  this  blinding  spirit,  that  your  faith  is  not  a 
"  strong  delusion  ?"  The  firmness  with  which  you  be- 
lieve it  is  no  evidence  of  its  truth.  Millions  have  more 
firmly  believed  a  grosser  falsehood.  Do  you  appeal  to 
the  judgment  of  Christians  of  all  ages  ?  Alas !  your 
scheme  was  unknown  until  the  present  century.  The 
best  of  men  in  all  ages  have  condemned  your  peculiar 


CONCLUSION.  337 


A  rash  confidence.  A  better  way    , 

doctrine.  Do  you  rely  on  the  superior  wisdom,  learn- 
ing and  piety  of  your  preachers  ?  But  ah !  you  have 
vastly  more  reason  to  believe  that  they  themselves  are 
all  the  victims  of  this  strong  delusion,  than  that  they 
alone, — few  in  number,  and  confessedly,  with  here  and 
there  an  exception,  illiterate  in  a  shameful  degree, — 
have  been  able  to  read  and  understand  the  word  of 
God  aright.  The  wise,  the  learned,  the  profound,  the 
intelligent,  and  the  mighty  in  every  age  are  against  you. 
Who  are  the  deluded  ?  Which  is  the  safer  scheme — 
the  scheme  that  presents  the  strongest  claims  to  your 
better  judgment  ?  With  such  men  and  such  multi- 
tudes of  sincere  and  humble  Christians  of  all  sects 
against  you,  can  you  believe  that  the  creed  of  the  Uni- 
versalist  is  true  1  Is  it  not  subjecting  yourself  to  a  haz- 
ard too  dreadful,  to  trust  your  interests  for  eternity  to 
such  a  forlorn  hope  ? 

Oh  that  you  would  but  make  a  trial  of  our  faith, 
our  hope,  and  our  joy !  One  at  least  of  your  number, 
who  for  years  professed  not  only  but  preached  your 
faith,  and  who  has  since  made  trial  of  that  which  he 
then  despised  and  destroyed,  has  assured  me  again  and 
again,  that  while  a  Universalist  he  was  a  perfect  stran- 
ger to  that  peace,  which -subsequently  has  filled  his  soul 
to  overflowing.  Thousands  can  say  the  same.  And  so 
will  it  be  with  you,  if  you,  too,  become  a  humble  fol- 
lower of  our  Lord  and  God, — Jesus  Christ.  "  COME 

THOU    WITH    US    AND    WE    WILL    DO   THEE    GOOD/' 


29 


BOOKS  OF  REFERENCE. 


1.  The  Modern  History  of  Universalisro,  by  Thos.  Whittemore  : 
Boston,  1830. 

2.  The  Life  of  Rev.  John  Murray,  written  by  himself;  Fifth  edi- 
tion, with  Notes  and  Appendix  by  Rev.  L.  S.  Everett :  Boston,  1833. 

3.  The  Plain  Guide  to  Univerealism,  by  Thomas  Whittemore : 
Boston,  1840. 

4.  The   Gospel  Anchor ;    (a  weekly  periodical ;)  Clement  Le 
Fevrc,  Isaac  D.  Williamson,  Editors  ;    Vol.  II.  :    Troy,  N.  Y. 
1832-3. 

5.  An  Exposition  and  Defence  of  Universalwm,  by  Rev.  I.  D. 
Williamson  :  New  York,  1840. 

6.  The  Universalist  Expositor  ;  (a  bimonthly  periodical ;)  Vol.  I. 
H.  Ballon,  and  H.  Ballou,  2d,  Editors  :  Boston,  1831. 

7.  The  Expositor  and  Universalist  Review  ;  (a  bimonthly  period- 
ical;; Vols.  II.  III.  IV  ;  Edited  by  Hosea  Ballou,  2d:  Boston,  1838, 
1839,  1840. 

8.  A  Discussion  between  Ezra  Stiles  Ely,  D.  D.  and  Abel   C. 
Thomas,  both  of  Philadelphia :  New  York,  1835. 

9.  The  Universalist  Companion,  with  an  Almanac  and  Register, 
containing  the  Statistics  of  the  Denomination  for  1841;  A.  B.  Grosh. 
Editor:  Utica. 

10.  Letters  addressed  Rev.  W.   C.   Brownlee,  D.  D.,  by  T.  J- 
Sawyer  :  New  York,  1833. 

11.  Letters  to  the  Rev.  Stephen  Remington,  by  T.  J.  Sawyer  : 
New  York,  1839. 

12.  A  Treatise  on  Atonement,  by  Hosea  Ballou ;  Fourth  Edition : 
Boston,  1832. 


340 


BOOKS  OF  REFERENCE. 


13.  Penalty  of  Sin  ;  a  Serjmon  by  T.  J.  Sawyer,  Pastor  of  the 
Orchard-street  church  :  New  York,  1839. 

14.  The  Universalist  Union  ;  (a  weekly  periodical ;)  conducted  by 
P.  Price  ;  Vols.  IV.  V.  VI. ;  New  York,  1839,  1840,  1841. 

15.  A  series  of  Lecture  Sermons,  delivered  at  the  Second  Univer- 
salist  Meeting,  in  Boston,  by  Hosea  Ballou,  Pastor  ;  Third  edition, 
stereotyped :  Utica,  N.  Y.,  1840. 

16.  Notes  on  the  Parables  of  the  New  Testament,  by  Hosea  Bal- 
lou ;  Fifth  edition,  stereotyped  :  Boston,  ]  832. 

17.  Reply  to  Professor  Stuart's  Exegetical  Essays  on  several 
words  relating  to  Future  Punishment,  by  Walter  Balfour  :  Boston 
1831. 

18.  Salvation  for  all  Men,  Illustrated  and  Vindicated  as  a  Scrip- 
ture-doctrine,  by    one    who   wishes  well   to    mankind — [Charles 
Chauncy,  D.  D.,]  ;  Boston,  1782. 

19.  Letters  on  the  Immortality  of  the   Soul,  the  Intermediate 
State  of  the  Dead,  and  a  Future  Retribution,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Charles 
Hudson,  by  Walter  Balfour  :  Charlestown,  Mass.  1829. 

20.  Evangelical  Magazine  and  Gospel  Advocate ;  (a  weekly  pe- 
riodical ;)  Aaron  B.   Grosh,   Dolphus  Skinner,  and  Stephen  R. 
Smith,  Editors ;  Vols.  III.  VII.  VIII. :  Utica,  1832, 1836, 1837. 

21.  Universalism  Illustrated  and  Defended,  by  Otis  A.  Skinner, 
Pastor  of  the  5th  Univer.  Soc.  in  Boston  ;  Boston,  1839. 

22.  An  Inquiry  into  the  Scriptural  import  of  the  words  Sheol, 
Hades,  Tartarus,  and  Gehenna,  all  translated  '  Hell'  in  the  common 
English  version.    By  Walter  Balfour ;    Second  Edition :  Charles- 
town,  Mass.  1825. 

23.  Notes  and  Illustrations  of  the  Parables,  arranged  in  the  order 
of  time  in  which  they  were  spoken,  by  Thomas  Whittemore  :  Bos- 
ton. 

24.  A  series  of  Lectures  on  the  Doctrine  of  Universal  Benevolence, 
by  Rev.  Abner  Kneeland;  Second  edition:  Philadelphia,  1824. 

25.  An  Examination  of  the  Doctrine  of  Future  Retribution,  by 
Hosea  Ballou:  Boston,  1834. 

26.  An  Inquiry  into  the  Scriptural  Doctrine  concerning  the  Devil 
and  Satan,  by  Walter  Balfour.     Second  edition:    Charlestown, 
Mass. 

27.  Three  Essays,  by  Walter  Balfour :  Charlestown,  Mass.  1828. 

28.  Universalism  against  Partialism,  by  Woodbury  M.  Fernald : 
Boston,  1840. 


BOOKS  OF  REFERENCE.  341 

29.  The  Process  and 'Empire  of  Christ,  from  his  Birth  to  the  End 
of  the  Mediatorial  Kingdom  :  A  Poem,  in  12  books,  by  Elhanan 
Winchester. 

30.  Theological  Works  of  Thomas  Paine  :  Boston,  1834. 

31.  Letters  and  Sketches  of  Sermons,  in  2  void,  by  John  Murray. 

32.  Universalist  Manual,  or  Book  of  Prayeri,  and  other  Roligiout 
Exercises,  by  Menzies  Rayner  :  New  York,  1840. 

33.  Trumpet  and  Universalist  Magazine ;  (a  weekly  periodical ;) 
by  Thomas  Whittemore.  Vol.  XIII.  :  Boston,  1840. 

34.  The  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  English,  by  Abner  Knee- 
land.  Vols.  I.  II.  :  Philadelphia,  1823. 

35.  The  Works  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  in  3  vols.    Vol.  III. 
New  York. 

36.  Pro  and  Con  of  Univerealism ;  by G. Rogers;  Cincinnati,  1840. 

37.  New  York  Observer ;    (a  weekly  periodical ;)  Vol.  XIX.  ; 
New  York.  1841. 


29' 


J.   A.   HOISINGTON, 

THEOLOGICAL,    SCHOOL,    CLASSICAL,    AND 

MISCELLANEOUS    BOOKSELLER, 

No.    156   Fulton   Street, 

THREE  DOORS  EAST  OF  BROADWAY, 

NEW  YORK. 

WHERE  BOOKS  MAY  BE  HAD  AT  VERY  REDUCED  PRICES.— Students, 
Clergymen,  Literary  Gentlemen,  and  Booksellers  from  the  coun- 
try, are  respectfully  invited  to  examine  the  subscriber's  stock, 
among  which  are  the  following : 


Scott's  Family  Bible  in  6  vols.  and 
in  3. 

Henry's  Family  Bible  in  6  vols. 
and  in  3. 

Clarke's  Commentary  on  the  Old 
and  New  Testament. 

Cottage  Bible,  2  vols. 

Mant  and  D.  Oyley's  do.  2  vols. 

Gill's  Commentary  in  9  vols.  and 
in  3. 

Comprehensive    Commentary 
complete  in  6  vols. 

Encyclopedia  of  Religious  know- 
ledge, 8vo. 

Bush's  Illustrations  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, 8vo. 

Companion  to  the  Bible. 

Robinson's  Calmet's  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible. 

Home's  Introduction  to  the  study 
of  the  Scriptures. 

Dwight's  Theology,  Dick's  The- 
ology, and  all  the  other  sys- 
tems of  Theology  now  in  use. 

Baxter's  (Rev.  Richard,)  Works, 
4  vols.  8vo. 

Stackhouse's  History  of  the  Bible, 
1  vol.  8vo. 

Cruden's  Concordance, 

Gill's  Body  of  Divinity. 

Rev.  Wrn.  Jay's  Works,  3  vols. 
8vo. 

Rev.  A.  Barnes  on  Isaiah. 

Rev.  A.  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  New 
Testament,  5  vols. 

Hegstenberg's  Chrystology,  com- 
plete, 3  vols.  8yo. 

Milner's  Church  History. 

Rollin's  Ancient  History,  various 
editions. 

1 


Cudworth's  Intellectual  System, 

2  vols.  8vo. 

Jahns'  Biblical  Archaeology. 
Bloomfield's   Critical    Digest,    8 

vols.  8vo. 
Bingham's  Christian  Antiquities, 

8  vole.  8vo. 
Appleton's  (Rev.  Jesse,)  Works,  2 

vols.  8vo. 

HellviU's  Sermons,  2  vols.  8vo. 
Fox's  Book  of  Martyrs. 
Campbell's   complete   Works,    2 

vols.  8vo. 

The  whole  works  of  Mrs.  Sher- 
wood, in  15  vols.  12mo. 
The   whole    works   of    Hannah 

More,  in  7  vols.  12mo. 
The  whole  works  of  Mrs.  Edg- 

worth,  in  10  vols.  12mo. 
Robinson's    Greek    and  English 

Lexicon. 
Gesenius'    Hebrew  Lexicon,   by 

Robinson. 

D  wight's  Theology,  4  vols.  8vo. 
Webster's  quarto  and  octavo  Dic- 
tionaries. 
The  whole  works  of  Rev.  Jacob 

Abbott. 

The  whole  works  of  J.  S.  Abbott. 
Encyclopedia  Americana,  13  vols. 

8vo. 
Waverly  Novels,  complete  in  6 

vols.  8vo. 
Waverly  Novels,  complete  in  27 

vols.  12mo. 

Leverett's  Latin  Lexicon. 
Southey's  Poetical  Works. 
Dick's  (Rev.  T.)  Works,  uniform 

in  7  vols.  12mo. 

Works  of  Rev.  R.  Hall,  3  vols,  8vo. 
1 


j.    A.    HOISINGTON'S    CATALOGUE. 


James'  Christian  Professor,  3d 
edition,  18mo.  cloth. 

Dr.  Sprague's  Works. 

Southgate's  Travels  in  the  East. 
Narrative  of  a  Tour  through 
Armenia,  Kurdistan,  Persia, 
Mesopotamia,  and  other  parts 
of  Asiatic  Turkey;  by  the 
Rev.  Horatio  Southgate,  2 
vols.  12mo.  numerous  plates 
and  cuts. 

Scripture  and  Geology,  on  the 
Relation  between  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  some  parts  of 
Geological  Science  ;  by  John 
Pye  Smith,  D.  D.  F.  G.  S. 
1  vol.  12mo. 

Hare's  Parochial  Sermons.  Ser- 
mons to  a  Country  Congre- 
gation ;  by  the  Rev.  Augus- 
tus William  Hare.  1  vol. 
large  8vo. 

Guizot's  History  of  Civilization. 
General  History  of  Civiliza- 
tion in  Europe ;  byM.Guizot, 
12mo.  second  edition. 

Griffin's  Remains  of  the  Rev.  Ed- 
mond  D.  Griffin— compiled 
by  Francis  Griffin,  with  a 
biographical  Memoir  of  the 
Deceased,  by  Rev.  John  Me 
Vickar,  D.  D.,  2  vols.  8vo. 

Bickersteth's  Complete  Works,— 
Library  edition,  1  vol.  8vo. 
sheep. 

Library  of  Religious  Knowledge, 
12mo. 

Vols.  1,  2,  3,  Tyerman  and  Ben- 
nett's Journal. 

Vol.  4,  Bates'  Harmony  of  the 
Divine  Attributes. 

Vols.  5,  6,  Wilson  on  the  Eviden- 
ces of  Christianity. 

Worcester's  Watts'  Psalms  and 
Hymns,  entire,  with  476 
Hymns  from  various  Authors, 
12mo. 

'<  "  18mo. 

»  »  "  32mo. 

"          Select  Hymns,  separate, 
morocco. 

Kingsley's  Social  Choir,  vol.  T. 


Kingsley's  Social  Choir,  vol.  II. 

Kelley's  First  Spelling  Book, 
18mo. 

Cogswell's  Manual  of  Theology 

and  Devotion,  12mo. 
'    Theological  Class  Book,  for 
Bible  Classes   and   Sabbath 
Schools,  13mo. 

Stowe's  Edition  of  Lowth's  He- 
brew Poetry,  8vo. 

Butterworth's  Concordance  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  with  con- 
siderable corrections  and  im- 
provements, 8vp. 

Baxter,  Richard,  Life,  Times  and 
Writings  of,  2  vols.  8vo. 

SCHOOL  BOOKS. 

Adam's  Latin  Grammar,  sheep. 
"         Roman  Antiquities,  new 

edition,  plates,  sheep. 
Blair's  Lectures,  18mo.  with  ques- 
tions, sheep. 

Bonnycastle's  Algebra,   sheep. 
Blake's  Geography,   numeious 

plates,  half  bound. 
Bennett's  Book-keeping,  half  roan 

Arithmetic,  half  roan. 
Beck's   Chemistry,    new  edition, 

sheep. 

Blake's  Conversations  on  Chem- 
istry, sheep. 
Cobb's  Juvenile  Readers,  No.  1, 

2,  and  3,  half-bound. 
Charles  XII.,   French,   sheep- 
Day's  Algebra,  sheep. 
"      Mathematics,  sheep. 
11      Trigonometry,  half-cloth. 

Mensuration, 
"      Navigation  and  Surveying, 

half-cloth. 
Emerson's  Arithmetic,  Nos.  1,  2, 

and  3,  half-bound. 
Gale's   Natural  Philosophy,    for 

schools,  sheep. 
Grajca  Minora,  sheep. 
Grasca  Majora,  2  vols.  sheep. 
Hale's  United  States,  with  Ques- 
tions, half  roan. 
Jacob's  Greek  Reader,   sheep. 
"          Latin  Reader,  sheep. 


j.    A.    HOISINGTON'S    CATALOGUE. 


Kirkham's  Grammar,  sheep. 

Leus*den's  Greek  and  Latin  Testa- 
ment, sheep. 

Leir.pr.ere's  Classical  Dictionary, 
sheep. 

Levizac's  French  Grammar, 
shtep. 

Lacroix's  Algebra,  last  edition, 
boards. 

Murray's  Grammar,  12mo.  sheep. 
Exercises,      " 
Reader,          "          " 
Sequel, 

Mair's  Syntax, 

Neuman  and  Barren's  Dictionary 
18mo.  sheep. 

Olmsted's  Natural  Philosophy,  2 
vols.  Svo.  sheep. 

Ofltrandt  r's  Mensuration,  boards. 

Olmsted's  Astronomy,  Svo.  sheep. 

Playfair's  Euclid,  sheep. 

Patterson's  Caesar,  " 

Paley's  Philosophy,  12mo.  with 
Questions,  sheep. 

Ryan's  Astronomy,  sheep. 

Recueil  Choisi, 

Valpy's  Greek  Grammar,  sheep. 
Virgil, 

Whelpley's  Compend  of  History, 
and  Questions,  sheep. 

Webster's  United  States,  18mo. 
she*  |>. 

Woodbridge's  Geography  and 
Ada?,  half  bound. 

Whateley's  Logic,  last  edition, 
sheep. 

Angell's  Union  Series  of  Common 
School  Classics,  being  a  com- 
plete series  of  Spelling  and 
Reading  Books,  in  six  num- 
bers, by  Oliver  Angell,  A.  M 
Principal  of  the  Franklin 
High  School. 

Union  Series  No.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  and 
6. 

Frost's  Easy  Exercises  in  Com- 
position. 

Parley's  Common  School  His  to 

Smith's  Introductory  Arithme- 
tic. 


Smith's    Practical    and    Menial 
Arithmetic. 

Productive  Grammar. 
1         Geography  and  Atlas. 
National  Reader,  by  Pierpont. 
Introduction  to  National  Reader 

by  Pierpont. 
Young  Reader,  by  Pierpont. 
American  First  Class   Book  by 

Pierpont. 
Brown's  Grammar. 
Willett's  Geography  and  Atlas. 

Ariinmetic. 

Bently's  Spelling  Book. 
Webster's      '« 
Cobb's 
Town's 

Woodbridge  and  Willard's  Geog- 
raphy and  Atlas. 
Olney's  Geography  and  Atlas. 
Mitchell's        " 
English  Readers. 
Daboll's  Arithmetic. 
Andrew's  and  Stoddard's   Latin 
Grammar. 

Latin  Reader. 
"       Exercises. 
"        Keys  to  the  above. 

Quarto  Bibles,  plain  and  extra 
from  $1  75  to  810,  Pocket  Hil.les 
and  Testaments  of  every  descrip- 
tion. 

N.  B.  All  new  works  of  interest 
received  from  the  dilii-rent  pub- 
lishers in  Philadelphia,  Boston 
and  Baltimore,  as  soon  as  they 
are  issued  from  the  Press. 

Colleges  supplied  with  Libraries 
and  Text  Books,  on  the  most  ac- 
commodating terms.  Teachers 
supplied  at  wholesale  prices. 

Country  merchants  will  find  it 
to  their  advantage  to  call  at  156 
Fulton  street,  3  doors  East  of 
Broadway,  before  making  thru- 
purchases.  Orders  from  the  coun- 
try promptly  attended  to. 


j.    A.    HOISINGTON'S    CATALOGUE. 


J.    A.   HOISINGTON, 

KEEPS  constantly  on  hand  all  works  needed  in  the  various 
departments  of  education. 

All  the  different  kinds  of  Bibles,  from  the  plain  or  Polyglot 
32mo.  (50cts.)  to  the  elegant  folio,  Bagster's  London  edition, 
($50.) 

All  the  Biblical  Commentaries  in  common  use  :  A  variety 
of  Hymn  Books,  with  a  general  assortment  of  Miscellaneous 
Works,  for  sale  in  any  quantity  at  lowest  market  prices. 

BARNES'  NOTES  on  the  New  Testament,  for  Sabbath 
Schools,  Bible  Classes,  and  Families.  This  work  consists  of 
two  12mo.  volumes,  making  about  800  closely  printed  pages, 
on  the  Gospels — one  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — one  on  the 
Romans,  &c.  They  are  bound  uniformly,  to  sell  in  sets  or 
singly,  as  preferred.  This  familiar  Commentary  has  been 
found  to  be  admirably  adapted  to  the  wants  of  this  age  of 
Sabbath  Schools,  and  has  met  with  unparalleled  success. 

QUESTION  BOOKS  about  the  size  of  those  of  the  Union 
Question  Books  have  been  prepared  also  by  Mr.  Barnes. 

CALMET'S  DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE,  8vo,  and 
also  abridged  for  young  persons,  18mo. 

BUTLER'S  ANALOGY,  with  Barnes'  Essay;  a  stereo- 
type edition  of  this  valuable  standard  work. 

RHETORICAL  READER,  by  the  late  Dr.  Porter.   Stereo- 

7  JAY'S  EVENING  EXERCISES,  for  the  Closet. 

All  the  Andover  Sacred  Classical  Works  for  sale  at  the 
lowest  prices. 

JACOB  ABBOTT'S  FIRESIDE  SERIES,  with  steel  en- 
gravings. 

Vol.  I.  Fireside  Piety. 

Vol.  II.  Mother's  Friend. 

Vol.  III.  China  and  the  English. 

Vol.  IV.  Real  Dialougues  on  the  "Evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity." 

JUVENILE  FIRESIDE  SERIES,  just  commenced,  ex- 
pressly designed  to  improve  the  taste  and  morals  of  the 
young. 

Vol.  I.  The  Way  for  a  child  to  be  Saved,  with  engravings. 

Vol.  II.  Every  Day  Duty, 

P.  S.  These  books  are  from  the  most  popular  and  success- 
ful writers  of  the  day,  and  well  fitted  for  the  Domestic  and 
for  the  Sabbath  School  Library. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 
MAR  0  1  2004 


DD20   15M  4-02 


LD  21-100m-8,'34 


w 


//s 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


